WP30566.08 In 1'1-rm men oomvrr or KARKATAKA cmcurr annex-1 AT mmnwxm % % nxmn nus mm 3" on or snnnungfizxfiixaé ma Horrnm MRJUBTICE i3§*5§,AR'nnt)§2'%..%_ WRIT pmrrlon nIo..3_g_3__5sgs6I§~:I<)'a lV¢3':l.?~_iv?i':.i'f'§3)_:V :2 . Sri..Tha11mai, S/o Rupaji Rawal, ' Age:53 years, Occ:ABusine$s._ _ V V R10 Pangul ' " _ ' ' Belgaum. f;,.- V . A ; " .._...?E'!'!'I'IOKER (By Adv) S/o Channeih % Mr;t1agz_i," Age:72 years, O<;c:B11si:acss, R/0 N~o.2902; Bazaar, " _ 'A ---------- -A xnspounnm % " 1 is filed under Ame' 1:23 225 and 227 of the (§onstitufiofivv._of~.;'!hdia praying to quash the impugned order by. tf;'xc*' Hon'b1t': Court of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Belgaf'um,».fon' IA N02 dt.9.6.2008 in O.S.No.253/2008 vide 'AVnncxurc--E and filrther allow the said application and ctc., ._ ' ' ; This petition coming on for preliminaxy hearing, this day, ' , thggceurt made the following: W?30566.G8 ORDER. 1. Heard the counsei for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the performance, instituted against certain properties. On the other handpit is respondent that the petitioner '£1 the ttiespondent
and the respondent has for under the
Karnataka Rent Control Ae-it. intum filed an
application before the t stay of further
proceedings trial Court having
rejected apemgggn the gifiund that the issues that
would ariet: are completely different and
the natore are also diflerent, in that, the
‘~s1_1it cjQtn;:Ifihen$iv*e”sizit pextaining to rights and interest of
of the suit property, whereas the
‘E-:..e:’eviction Imder the Rent Contmi Act are
p pgfoeeedings wherein the scope of enquiry is
“!:;1:1w.einy”even’t, the triai Court has held that it had no jurisdiction
WP30566.08
to stay proceedings before the Court under the Rent Conirgl
Aactand hasheldthattherewaszaocaemade out.
3. In the above facts and chuxmstamcs,
Warrant for interference as them is no préjiidice
petitioner on account of these proccedm: ‘
There is no infirmity or illegality
woukl warrant interference
the petition is nejccted. .
Jm/~