" V. - Age-:1 aébmgxf: 46 years, N.Jay*-azjxfijll, are residing at N03, flew IN THE HIGH coum' or mmarmm AT EANGALO_RE DA.TED THIS THE 30TH BA'? or MARCH, 2009. j _ BEFORE V V THE HOWBLE ne1R..I:.rs'r:c:__E3 '.3. rawitfi . " WRIT PETITIOH 119.4130 o1é'»A:zo<J°:'.. vi' '& BETWEEN: ffajefi Ismail Sharifi, , . S] 0. Hajee Mohammad Usm--aI1,_ I Aged about 40 years, A = Residi1:igatNo.3, V Nafifiaramsingh Lam: 1 Civil Station, H g5" _. _ 3 _ Bangaiore - E3651} (Krill. _ _ ' PETITIOHER (By Sn: v'Adv, £5: " Legal Axisg, AdvsI}*'._--vV AND: L P. Nagaraj, '4 'V sg.o.i,_chickpa1appa,,_ ____ H , S] <1.ChiCk_piHgppa, Aggd abo1;tj?¥3 years, H 3,? 9' Cilickpillappa, _ é'sgea'_« about 4 1 years, " '-'Nandaxamsingh Lane Civil Sfatisn, Baxzgaiore -- 560 O0 1. RESPONDENTS
{By Sri P.Arun Kumar, Adv.)
…..2….
This Writ Pettiticzn its filefi under Articles 226 63 22′? of the
Consiifufion of India praying to set aside the order fiateci
19.02.2007 vi-de Annexumé? passed in (3.3. No.16849/32Q_2″.<_Jn
the file of the XXVI Add}. City Civil 85 Sessions Judge"at"-}\¢IayTQ
Hall, (CCH No.20), Bangalore passed 0111.5. No.3 ~ _»__
This Petition coming on for b
this day, the Court; made the fo}}ow:i:::1g:–.:
0 R I) E____23_. '
E. In this writ petition, g3e'£itio'iic%'_V'M'is_ order
dated 19.02.2007 pass¢3,_in :'fi1_s'f. r~.:g1.,'5 %s49/2o'd2'%" afiowing
I.A.No.3 filed by the piainfififgénd defence of the
defendant with a dirécgfion the.:.é1efe1A§t{a"r.t_.§<$«vacate am} deiiver
the mssessiani. bf _:iE;;:; fiS:i1it ismflfises Within' a month
from the diziftémtif
2. 07.04.2001 This Court has
granted an Vc§1fdé:~~.v_b’of–“pL:stay cf the: impugnéd rmier on
‘Subsficiufiatiy, by Way of an agaplication I.A.No.1,
jgicztitirfiiaxj sought for amendment of the writ petition
so as?’ Va €§hjai1.3feuz1ge to an order passed earlier in 1:11:53 suit by .
4:23;: be1aw on 18.08.2005 din:-cting the
ggefifianer herein to deposit arrears of rent fmm July,
_ EGO?’ date of passing of ‘£116: arcier and keetp on deposifing
“i”JV’;vi:f3H§3.£{}.{? till the disposal of the suit as and when the rents
J6
-3-
bL:.’.amc:-: due at the rate of Rs.3,000/~ per month, subject to
dettzrmination of 1116336 profits after recording the €Vjv’];.-(Vi.Vé_ii\1«(V%é\’v”
Though this appiication for amendment of the ‘
been filed on 97.06.2007, the same i3~~not
application is éirected to be considcxtéd
Baatter.
3. Counsel for the 1)etit:iV<:«;'*1v.1;-,:?;' $16 otgdrér passed
striking ofi' the defence on at the rate: of
Rs.5,()OO/~ per ::fi}vé:ix5;r1"is'i«uz1sustaina13ie as
the Court beiotig inter the question
regarding of landlord and tenant
and also rent payable. Drawing the
attentiongsf thc the xfifitten statement filed, counsel for
Siiihnsité as the petitiorzer had denied the
the paxties, the Court below couid not
' '-yhave Qffdeffince cm the gmund that rent as directeci
— « ~ was not paid{ 1
~ §i’§.”«S’1}I)V};3OI’t 0f the challenge made to the order passed. 01::
directing payment of admitted rent at Rs.5,0{}0/~
‘ along with arrears, counaal subxrxits that though ‘
there is delay in filing the application making amendment and
g/%
£3
afihough the petititmer had not cheasen to challenge this order
passed in the year 2005 soon thereafter, as the challenge
to the order striking OK the defence has
order passed directing payment of rent, the deiay..i,I§V_A4_See1<§i:§1g'_ti1e' b
amendment to challenge the order daied
condoned and the writ petition be eJ1oWed'a3e"there V'
the order passed by the Court beloueh» .
5. Counsel for the Iespondentse–s?x:i§ng}j1A. supfioréts kioth the
orders particularly emphasizingafi “of the petitioner
in laying a challexzg-;f’i:0__ the:”6I”tieij at such a
beiated stage rents for the
occupafion gjf that the petitioner is
ilkegally premises without payiflg any
rent despite eheigegg é” by the Court helew.
heaxti counsel for the parties and
pleadings, I finé that the plaintiffs have
paragraph-3 of the plaint contending
e…_.i;1’te;a1ia is an ufiderstanding ‘between the plaintiffs
vide memorandurez of understanding dated
whereunder the defendant is permitted to occupy” a
V cf the 33′ floor of the premises for a period of 10 morxths
…, 5 …,
from the date of execution of the said memorandum of
understanding to onable the defendant to secure an a}t::z7t_1ot§ve
accommodation and that in. the ave:-111: the defendaqiit’ go
secure such an aitemative accommodation arm} the’
premises, he shall pay to the ‘a S>1’_#’.”‘[V]’].::,C’5’n”f’._I?:»”%«’
month as rent.
7. In the Written statementttvtvfiihied _ at the
defendant has contended metotorotzdum of
undsrstanding dated as the
defendant was ‘r:’:1’c:”:.§1;so1:aA,§.tf3ab ttift. I plaint schedule
property as on He conttnds that
the memo;*Q1idu;%ivi;%i; not valid and binding
against thévvtdetfcrcndafit;
8. In the 611161′ ;1zit;:*_éV’}o.E3″.Q«é3:’:V2{)05 passed by the Court beiow,
t]:2e Tfia1{C§om ha$’1ig§fiy observeci that the defendant admittesri
ltfileiteyzctrutivoii. of ‘sale deed. Prior to the execution of the sale
e£ce:i£1.._ eiiefenéant entered into a memorandum
V tvof u’11é3é”:-*st;’.?:.*=fn.e?.ii:;.”::lg: data} 01.08.2001, Whomunder tho dizfondant
H to rent to the plaintifis at the rate of Rs.5,{)0{)] — per
stay in the property til} deiivczy of possession to the
Thfi Court below has hold that in the facts and
._ ..
circumstances of the eaee, it was just and proper to ___allow
I.A.No.2 filed by the plaiiitiffs seeking direction to depoeiflflie
arrears of rent from July, 2002 till the date of .
order which is new seught to be challegriged see-k’ii1g* ii ”
of the writ petition is passed based oi: t}:=§ees:taiid_i %.’z-died’
defendant in the written statemienfvis”-~:i–vis the étssertigns made
in the piaint.
9. Although. corpus_e1 f;;1- that the
Cerurt beiow fine status of the
parties and also as regards
the .i f do not t]:11’11k there is any
substance file pleadings adverted to herein
above ‘p’.*§:1’a§,rai3h–4 of the Written statement make
objeeiions raised by the defendant to the
iVof.e’1Lif1derstanding is more on the ground that it
i was he: a fclecument and not on the greimd that “it was not
” exeeuied xbgsa That apart the conduct of the gxseititicmer in not
i to the order passed on 18.08.2005 and not paying the
as directed and choosing to ehaiienge the said order after
lapse of nearly two years that too when his defence was struck
off by the Trial Coufi; for not paying the rent deserves to be
cated. The defendagiitj petitioner hereixz cannot have the
…. 8 ..
propose 1:0 go into t}:Lis qt}:-:s%io1:3,_ Suflice 1:0 obsexve _4t1§ai.t, thc
defendant has not paid the mats as éiztcted by the _
which has resulted in striking off his defgpce.
13. in the light of the discussion
having due regani to the condzi;:1e.r 2i’«’fifé}f’i’€iVé to ” V
herein above, the appficatierjp améndmaviit of the
writ petition does not Irequirc’:Var1§§’ ordgtzg The writ petifion
and the appiicatitra
‘judge
PKS