The All India Reporter 1953 - Mysore Section with Comparative Table for (1) I.L.R. (1952) Mysore (2) (1952) 30 Mysore Law Journal Citation: A.I.R. (40) 1953 Mysore

Even if he decides that it is proved before him that the person who is sought to be evicted is a tenant and he passes an order of eviction, it is open to the person against whom the order is passed to file in the ordinary Civil Courts having jurisdiction to decide the matter for declaration that he is the owner of the property and that the order of the House Rent Controller is without jurisdiction [...] In the case of a suit by a landlord to eject a tenant without a notice determining the tenancy, if the tenant raised no objection to the passing of a decree, it would not be open to such a tenant in execution of the decree to raise the contention that the judg- ment was wrong. [...] His case is that subsequent to the dissolution, which the defendant himself brought about, the defendant had received from Joseph the full amount for which the taxi had been pledged to both of them and that the defendant is bound to pay the plaintiff the sum which he had advanced towards the pledge and that the defendant has also promised to so pay it. [...] He however observed that had the assessment been made on the plaintiff and defendant by name so that the assessment showed on the face of it that the defendant was liable for a part of the amount the plaintiff might have been entitled to recover the excess amounts he had paid on behalf of the defendant under section 70 or section 69 of the Contract Act. [...] The mere fact that the defendants mentioned to the Sub-Registrar that the money had been received and the plaintiff had agreed not to present the document for registration can- not take away the legal effect of Exhibit E. It is curious that even after the defendants became aware of the plaintiff having played false in seek- ing registration of the sale deed, they did not choose to present Exhibit