(a:y'»M/s1v.y*RAIN'GARANu & ASSTS, ADvs.)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11?" DAY OF NOVEMSER
BEFORE %'
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD_.R.A:HIVMV:'A«.:: 3
H.R.R.P NO.189:/R009' T, -1' A ' V
BETWEEN: V' 1 .
1. SMT DHANALAKSHMI, w/O=E."PSHANI<AR',AAF ,
AGED 35 YRS., R/A NO. 3a.,,_3R.D=IvIA1N R~O,A,D,_,*
6TH CROSS, RAMA'KR1SH'NANA£3_AR,~--_
6TH PHASE, 3.P.NAGAR, ' I
BANGALORE
_ PETITIONER
(By Sri K B YUVARAJ BALLAL--,v~'ADx/V_')--._"--V._.._;
I. SRI.Ni1\RI3sYANfisPPA_S,fO'LAKSHMAIAH,
A/A21.5'*:'RS'.,.,_R,<A--NOA._ 38', (IST FLOOR)
3RD MAI_I\1,. 6TH C.R"OS.IS,
RAMAAKRISHNANAGAR, 6TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR
BAN_GALORE'* ,,,,, 14 A
RESPONDENT
*–~HR’RPl'{jIS’fsEILED U/S 46 OF KR ACT, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED: 30.06.2009 PASSED IN HRC NO.555/2005
LON TH,EQFI:_E OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
‘CAUSES-.. BANGALORE, OISMISSING THE EVICTION,
‘ ..jTfPE*I’IT.ION U/S 27(2)(a) AND (r) OF KR ACT.
»’ “This HRRP Coming on for hearing this day, the Court
.,m.:§de the foiiowing:
V.
, ‘3
?.
QRDER
This revision is directed against the o:”derV.~~–dated
30.0.2009 in HRC555/OS on the fife of Judge, sqjaii’c;-‘mes
Court, Bangalore, dismissing the petition filed
27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karn:at’aka«.’RentV’.”:Afi§.c¢t.V”{iEi9§.,, ‘
(hereinafter referred to as the Act,fa’fo_r
is posted for admission afterVn0,t:i’ceg to the resp”0nd.,e’n’t’;
2. Heard. The pel:i’tiA0ii~is a%idr10.itfte.d’»a’ra’dtaken up for final
disposal.
3. Contexttiglyitfvacts both sides have made
reference
a)”i?etitione_r’ h’erein__’:’i’ni’tiated proceedings against the
respoiident–4i\iaraya’hap’pav under the provision of Section
if”2.7(2)(é=j:’and__(r) ofmthfe Act on the plea that he was tenant
of the 1″ floor of property bearing
I\io.”3_8 situ.aft’ef at Jaraganahalii, Bangalore, which is now
jurisdiction of City Municipal Council,
if~.¥§a3;.a.rajeshwarinagar, Bangalore, on a rent of Rs.2,500/-
In this regard, it is aiieged the property in question
“1,
2
L
3
‘E 1
K
3
was originally owned by Chikkamuniyappa who after
receiving sale price, sold the same to her on
Since then, she is the owner and landlord of _
question and the respondent is tenant unde_r~~he’t’;:’~.. V
b) He paid rents to her tiil 3t..12:.’2iQ04′;ahut”coi’hrn_itteid’
default later necessitating issuance o*§..n’oticeiv’vo’n..jv1.3V.V9._.20OS.:i»
calling upon him to pay rents”-.ar:–d_» a|s’oa.t_o. vacate the
premises. He was served’:w_iAtl’i_ notiVce._lLbutidid not respond.
C) He contested,t’he-ievictiyonl inter alia
contending perty 38,; of Lia ratjanahalli, Uttarahalli
Hobli, was by Chikkamuniyappa who had
formed .r_esiyde’n«t_ial-.fl’ay4o-ult”arid sold to various purchasers.
He e:_e;e–cuted’4″a»..vdeed of’ generai power of attorney in favour
.hofyS’een”appVa~_on 2li”.’.”3″.A1986 who in turn executed a sale
in favour of Doorvasa in respect of
house prope’rty bearing site no.1 of Survey No.38 and
R””-L'”received…advance of ?2,00,000/- out of saie consideration of
i .:”‘:52i,.5o’,o00/-.
‘». 2’
\.;
4
cl) Parties were allowed to iead evidence and both
sides produced documents relied on by them. Further
deveioprnent is that Narayanappa executed a saiew.d_e.ed.._in
favour of his wife during the pendency of the _
e) The learned trial judge __too_l_ ‘p.ro’o_f” ofT~–}’u’ra_l
relationship of Eandlord and ten’a.nt between 1p_artiVes3 and–.i’
dismissed the petition. ‘_
4. Both the parties ciaitntitle’Ethrou_gh_’.:~a’llcornrnon original
owner, Chikka§nm.niyapp_a. 1: ‘It rny notice that
o.s.97;i1/Q5’ respondent’s wife-Girijamrna
seeking Ato__declarei’the sal.e”‘d’eed in favour of the petitioner
as nuIi–a_nd thewsaid suit, the petitioner herein is
.A”thev’on|y–.”¢on’testingVVldetendant apart tron’: other defendants.
“isVi’.n,o~*dispute that there is a cornprehensive suit
pehdingV__v~infespect of the schedule property. These are
Z””‘-“aspectswhich the court dealing with (18,974:/D6 is seized
A matter is, therefore, sub judice so far as title of the
.,pr:irties is concerned.
5″‘?
Si [fig/x
5
5. In this fact situation, the provision of Section 43 of
the Act would come into play. The order that coupidjhave
been passed by the trial court is to direct bot_h””part’i’_e~s”
have adjudication of their rights in the civiicou_:r’txorl.:to4_wait,
till the suit is disposed of, instead of
petition.
6. In the result, I pass thei-folljlowiln-g_ order:-…
The eviction petition”’ is kept in
abeyance avg.a«i–ti:n’g. civil court in
O.S.9741/€J6.fl_’«.fo-” of the trial court
dismissing and the proceedings are
stayed”‘r_ti’i%4″ Depending on the
result ofuthe proceedings in HRC.555/O5 have
toV_»”51;:e_”comrn’ence_d_.by the trial court. With these
‘ ;o’bserv,a’t.iionVs”;vthe revision petition is disposed of.
Sdf 5
EUQGE