IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26'"? DAY OF AUGUST 2010 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JAWAD HRRP No.11?'/2010 BEE} WEEN Seetharam Acharya, Age 43 years, S/0.Narahari Acharya, Door N0.1O-- 1229, Opp.Pa1imar Mutt, Car Street, Udupi ---- 5'76 101. .._V .. Petitioyrier (By Sri Vyasa Rao K G4 V 1. Srinivas Shetif. Age 79 years, ' _ " .. ,S-/o.Ve'r11s:at1*2iya Shet, g '/_<5._'ZV2 / 72"," «1.2?..'11.v1\/Eain, _ 2"¥1'G'B1bck, Rajajinagar, ' . T. .B3..rigs_t10Afe.--_ 10. 2." . . ''''eVijVeiy;§;i'Aéharya, Age 4-4"'years. Gum Theja, V' Tgékge 24 years. 7 Respondent No.2 is the Wife and
~ “Respondent No.3 is the son of
fie’?
I
Gururaja Achaiya, both are
R/o. 10- 1-229. Opp.Pa1i:mur
Mutt. Car Street,
Udupi – 576 101. ..Responden,ts_’ »
(By Sri B V Krishna. Adv. for C/R1)
This HRRP is filed under Section:1″1T5*’of._the».Ci3Q,:’
praying to set aside the order dated d18.3.*2_O 1.0 pas~sed.
by District Judge, Udupi inrR_RP No.6′,/200.45confirriiing
the decree and order dated –6__.”i~.1.200-‘.i..__ paVssedi,b”yeethe H ”
Addl. Civil Judge [Jr.Dn.] and_.dJMFC,’~–Ud’t’1pigin HRC
No.12/2002
This HRRP coming this day, the
Court passed the_fo11owing_:j~. ‘ V ‘ :1 ~– ”
V V’ iéetition under Section
115 oi’.._ACFCA >thefi’erdei- dated 18.3.2010 in RRP
No.6/ District Judge, Udupi.
the of eviction in HRC No.12/2002
on the file of the learned II Additional
and JMFC, Udupi, directing eviction
‘g_of tdetitioner herein under Section 27(2)[j) and [r] of
d “:df”the”Karnataka Rent Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel on both the sides. This
petition is posted for admission and it is takenutioiifor
final disposal.
3. Contextual facts are:
The respondents initiated iexrictionp p’roceeidi.1igs °aga1dnvst’=,
the petitioner herein on the
petitioner/ tenant Vl’:al_ter11.ate suitable
accornm.0dation._ for that the
respondentsLllaridlordsi premises for
their accommodate their
second The contentions urged in
the the tenant contending that
thvere no in the claim and secondly that he
‘ has.not’~sect1r_ed any premises as urged in the petition.
of landlords and tenant between the
partiesgwas not in dispute. Therefore. the trial court
examined whether the case is made out under
Section 2’7(2)[j) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act. In
(‘}\Q1/
\.
this regard, the evidence tendered by Seethararna
Acharya has been considered by the trial court
in mind the answers elicited in the cross–exarnina’tiCi’n; it _
is held the evidence tendered __by__the ll”
sufficiently established both
petition and the tenant has”~…failed “any * it
circumstances against record.
Reiterating the plea as trial court, the
tenant was Court
has found Wtvith the findings
recordved”Vb’y..:thve there is concurrent
findings V. herein.
4. .,._§gLearned” ~counsel for the petitioner endeavored to
at–,strictly speaking, the case is not made out
tn-dher of eviction under Section 27[2][j) and
[r] of Karnataka Rent Act.
it I-Iowever. taking into consideration undisturbed
~-eyidence on record, I find no infirmity illegal or
5
otherwise in the impugned order passed by the
Revisional Court confirming the order passed in HRC.
Hence, the petition fails and is rejected.
6. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is
running business in the schedule premises, whi-chwis
source of livelihood and his family l’._the”
petitioner is evicted without grant of.reas4o,na.ble4time, it f
will adversely affect him. .»i’n._thel”circiims’iiari::eVs, is
reasonable to grant one year timeltouvacate, the premises
in question. Hence, the tollowii,iig: ”
l§”l”oRosfi”
They,ordeiiidated’~..:l8;3.2010 in RRP No.6/2004
passed» by Ijistrict Judge, Udupi confirming
l dthelfaderldahxiHéllL2004 in IiRC lW112/2002 is
l’C'(.)I’1″l_~lI’l.;IIvE’Cl”..,V>l petitioner/ tenant is granted one year
V it _ time”–to .-vacate the premises subject to payment of rent
lyhlregularlylto the landlords without any default. He is
.l aiso “directed to file an affidavit undertaking to vacate
:3
the premises within the time stipulated, Within two
Weeks before the Registry. In case there is any default
in paying the arrears or current rent for Consecutive
period of two months, the benefit of time grantedjfijll
stand revoked and the landlords/resp0nder_ri’s”iyiiidioeu
entitled to execute the order.
Bkm.