P.V. PAPANNA AND ORS. versus K. PADMANABHAIAH

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 04-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MOHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.V. PAPANNA AND ORS. 
.L.. 
v. 
K. PADMANABHAIAH 
FEBRUARY 4, 1994 
B 
[S. MOHAN AND M.K MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961: Section 21(1)--Landlord-Eviction 
decree against tenant on the ground of bona fide personal requirement-Death 
• 
of landlord-Eviction decree-Whether becomes ittexecutable-Events sub-
c sequent to the filing of petition-When can be taken into account-Subseqent 
events whether could be taken note of during execution stage. 
The appellants' predecessor-in-interest, landlord, obtained a decree 
of possession against the respondent-tenant on the ground that the suit 
premises were bona fide required for his personal requirement to start a 
D business. The respo~dent-tenant preferred a revision before the High 
Court which dismissed the same but granted him 4 years time to vacate 
~ 
the prem~seS,. The special leave petition filed by the tenant challenging the 
order of the High Court was dismissed. However, before the expiry of 4 
years granted by the High Court the landord died leaving a will bequeath-
E 
ing the suit premises to his brother, wife and his son, i.e., the appellants. 
On failure of the respondent- tenant to vacate the premises within 
4 years the appellants filed an execution application which was resisted by 
the tenant contending that (1) the order of eviction having been made 
,;_ 
solely on the ground of bona fide use and occupation of premises by the 
F 
deceased landlord to carry on a business, it became inexecutable on his 
death; (ii) the order of eviction being personal it could not be inherited by 
or assigned in favour of the legal representatives. 
The Executing Court passed an order directing issuance of a delivery 
G 
warrant holding that (i) once th, decree for eviction had become final it 
could not be agitated that the decree had become infructuous as the 
personal requirement of landlord for his own use and occupation had 
,. 
come to an end with his death; (ii) on the death of the landlord the rights 
created by the decree stood transfered in favour of the legal representatives 
and the same could not be defeated on the ground that the decree holder 
H had died. On revision, the High Court set aside the order of the Executing 
642 
PAP ANNA v. P ADMANABHAIAH 
643 
Court and dismissed the eviction petition on the grounds that (i) the cause A 
of action did not survive on the death of the landlord and that (ii) the· 
legatees, claiming as legal representatives of the deceased landlord, could 
not execute the decree for eviction which was purely personal. Against the 
decision of the High Court appeal was preferred in this Court. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High 
Court, this Court 
B 
HELD: 1. In a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide require-
ment of premises by landlord the subsequent events ought to be taken into 
account for the purpose of finding out whether the landlord still required C 
. the premises in possession of the tenant. However, such an enquiry can be 
made so long as the decree for eviction does not become final. In other 
words, once the matter has become final in the sense that the order of 
eviction bas been upheld by the highest Court in which it was sought to be 
challenged, it would not be open to further challenge, which necessa~ily 
can be in the execution stage. This conclusion inevitably follows from the D 
well settled principle that a Court executing the decree cannot go behind 
the decree for it is binding and conclusive between the parties to the suit. 
Therefore, the Executing Court is required to execute the decree as it finds; 
save in exceptional cases where the decree on the face of it may be found 
to be without jurisdiction. [647-H, 648-A-B] 
E 
2. Events which take place subsequent to the filing of an eviction 
petition under any Rent Act can be taken into consideration for the 
purpose of adjudication until a decree is made by the final Court deter-
mining the rights of the parties but any event that takes place after the 
decree becomes final cannot be made a ground for reopening the decree. F 
The finality to the dispute culminating in the decree cannot be reopened 
by the executing Court for re-adjudication on the ground that some event 
or the other has altered the situation. [649-E] 
2.1. Once the decree became final it became a part of the estate of 
the landlord and therefore the appellants as legal representatives of the G 
deceased landlord are entitled to execu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.