IN THE HI.G§~i COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF NOVEMBER
BEFORE
THE HON' ELE MR. JUSTICE ANAND &BY'l.i{'i#:§1R'E.D'ljV'f.'_:'&.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL 2277 OF 1 "
BETWEEN:
V. Ibrahim Beary,
S/0 Moidukunhi Beary,
Aged about 54 years,
Merchant, I _ -
Ideal Electric
Vitta] Kasba " -I V' ' '
13.0. Vittal, A A ..
Bantwal ...APPELLANT
(By Shri. Sudi1a1<Va'r..'"iff'ai;' vi4?i¥éf'i'i?Ectate)
AE:~?_13_;
'Elk A N'aray'a,,I1a
"Since 'd.ec.eased by
Legal Representatives,
V E a. "Suda_rs'h-aii Padiyar
Ag~ed'3.b0ut 45 years,
Kanchanamaia
"Aiged about 44 years, 8/
.110. ysa;ta1,d'*Bmwa;--frq_g(p,.K) M 575 001.
V. N4am:2rde\*a Padiyar
g CB. Abdul Sab, Advocate for Caveator/Respondent)
C. Suneethi
Aged about 43 years,
d. Bharathi
Aged about 4?. years,
e. Shobha
Aged about 40 years, A
f. J yothi
Aged about 38 years,
g. Shreevalli v __
Aged about 36 years, ‘
h. Asha ‘V , yg L V _
Aged aboflutg
i. Muktha: {I ll ., . ‘
Agedl’a’b'<)uiti,32 years,' ' ~ .
Responde fits l1{a)V I0 ‘are’ ~ ». .
All children ‘€3f,__’¥,;a,tVe V’, Nateayavna Padiyar,
All are Residing at V.it’ta1″Ka§.ba Village,
, ‘CS,/0″ afayana Padiyar,
‘A V Aged ab()11{35 years,
“”Res%;ding”at Vittal Kasba Village,
RD. ‘ivfittal,
* :,BantWaI Tq. (DK) — 575 001. …RESi3ONDENTS
=l<=%==-I%==€<
5
This appeal is filed under section 100 of Code of___Civil
Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree ‘dated
27.07.2010 passed in R.A.No.l26/2007 on the fiie of theV.fC.jiril
Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC, Bantwai, D.K., partly allov.r.i1_ig: the
appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated.”27;06;20{}7″_”e
passed in O.S.No.l68/ 1997 on the file of the Prin_c’ip’al :C.ipv’i~l.V§ge * V.
(Jr.Dn), Bantwal, D.K.
This appeal coming on for,Adrnissio”n._ he C:ou1’lt”‘deli\;=elredl’~_
the following: — 2 V’
Jonomatiiiigli C
Heard the learned counsg for,
2. The in a suit for
ejectment in prernises. The suit was
contested:blylti1el..i§lfo:ifelndVantli”l.lflowlei}_er;’ the trial Court decreed the
suit by a decree, which was carried in
appeal before ltheV_:llow.eriiappellate Court. The lower appellate
Court” p’artl”yA.¢decreedllthe appeal and reduced the rnesne profits
paya’b.le from the date of the suit till the date of
V judgmle-nt, V-._howelver, decreed the suit insofar as ejectment was
” “goincernedillll It is that, which is sought to be challenged in the
Z
present appeal. The respondent has not preferred any appeal
insofar as reduction of the mesne profits are concerned.
3. The substantial questions of law that are sought.-to be
framed in this appeal are as follows» i T
“(a)Whether the Courts below werejf»:
justified in granting the decre-e”‘when the if
notice was defective?
(b)In the absence ‘o_f”‘*~..pproo.t’V._ of-..Aljvura–l:4l””
relationship of landlord an.d..te’nant,pwhether_thef
Courts below were jAL1″;1’lLplf”;3.§3EVl.:g’1’IippI]tiI1g a
decree for p.ossession_?’_”–.V ‘V V 2 V
4. The jasfcazn be ifjseenrlrelate to whether the
quit notice l-~wa’s~._”de:fecti.v’–et or lbw-hether there was proof of
relationship of These are findings of fact.
The findings as ..can be seenare supported by reasons and cannot
i’lbe_sai’d.: ;_b.§; infirrr1lon””account of the application of the material
e’videncerso_n».recor:l in arriving at such findings. Therefore, there is
no substan.t.izrl_r;uestion of lawghat arises for consideration. The
a contention by this Court, sitting in second appeal. Henee, he
would submit that the appeal be rejected at the threshold. .:
7. Given the above facts and circumstances; *
though without merit, the appellant:”would-‘_: “aen4titileCi1i’,» to, 2
reasonable time to quit and deliver vacant lpoissessioirof «.the_ii’su’it~._
premises. The appellant having in possession iofiiithe suit V
premises since 1977, granting and deliver
vacant possession would arn_o’unt :p1aeivn’gi{_’a._iiargesse on the
appellant to the ,_andii_pr_ej’uiciiC–e’: of the respondent.
Hence, the question oi”i4g1’a4nti.ng twonj/ears time would not arise.
I-lowever, i1″gthe_ appeli-art! iis–.__igrahted about six months’ time, it
would bereasona-b1e.” lnthat, proceeding on the footing that if
in this {m}e«t9 be admitted on a substantial question of law, if
itiiiwaisi-eapalile.__o’tl,being raised, then it would have been possible
‘for theiiiiappeilanit to continue in possession for much more than six
Therefore, on that premise, the appellant is granted six
i”-.___i”‘.tn.oi:ths’ time to quit and delivg vacant possession of the suit
premises, namely, on or before 3.l.5.20_1.l subject to payment of
the entire arrears of rent after setting off Rs.5,300/~«,
admittedly a security deposit held by the respo’ndevni;Q
appellant shall therefore pay the balanceofwithiriasiixp V
weeks from today failing which the respondent at
to execute the judgment and deoree”‘-ofthe CouIts_ “oel.ow’.”::
8. The appellant ‘shall ;1’lso_iVifi’Ie_ ~.affida\i/it within two
weeks, undertaking to quit_and».deliiVve>r *(/’aea’ii.tjV possession of the
premises on or .5,i201€1;Jwit_hoatany”further orders of this
Court or thezviurespondent E§ei:igi’d.r:iven towexecution proceedings.
The appellant shall alsow.payfnies—ne”p’rofits which would be due at
Rs.350/~« per” month Niiwvember onwards till the date of
ya::ating».the premises to the respondent along with the arrears
sd/.2
IUD GE
h V ‘ l;:l;:i1b,,u-‘