I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS ON THE 22"" DAY OF JANUARY.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE v.G.SATE,.HfAHIT: 2
AND
THE HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE S.N.S_S'ATvA.N'ARAyANA
R.F.A. No.1OSvi%2EO0'V9 (REESE-I
BETWEEN E K E E'
R P G GUARDIAN PVT' LTD; V
A CO INCORPOR'A'TE'D;U_ND.ER THE '
CoMPAN'if'E.Si'AC*i<_, 1956"
WITH..THE5QR_E.GIST.E RED '..OEEIc_E AT
No. 754O,_.-'GA'TE"--NOf2;j.EA'3HW'ARI INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE,"'i-i{;.{1,IIVi,43I\2'iJ,' BANN.ERGHATTA ROAD
'BA'NGA.L'ORE1¥V5't3Q0Z6 I
'RER_R-ESELTEDT BY', '
LEGAL HEAD '}3RI'«VEN4K'ATA SUBBAIAH M
APPELLANT.
(By_;fSI?T SHYAM..I<OO_NDINYA A S, ADV.,)
W MOH'D7;ASHRAE
AG;E'D3'3 YEARS
S/OZMT MOHD IBRAHIM SAIT
* I I R/AT No.21/17, CRAIG PARK LAYOUT
G ROAD, BANGALORE--560001
* -. AND ALSO AT No.52, I A CROSS,
47" MAIN, DOMLUR II STAGE,
BANGALORE RESPONDENT
(By Sn : KAMAL & BHANU, ADv., FOR C/R )
3
RFA FILED U/S 96 CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED: 13.08.2009 i>AssED,J*,_II\i
OS.NO.25613/2007 om THE FILE or THE
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BANGALoR.E,’,_”_DECII§:EEIIJG ,0
THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND ” I E’ V
THIS APPEAL coMING””‘roVI§i’» EoR”A.D{virIssIQN THIS
DAY, SABHAHIT 3., DE’jjLzI/ER_ED”V_TE:’E_V towxiiisdhfi »
ffhhisv”a.:pV5p_eaEi::3:’§V’Vis byEE’ithe respondent in O.S.
I\io.256″1.3/2007V’VoA’;_rV«tpHeI.fiset«of the XXVI Add}. City Civil
Judge,_ Matya/”oh.aiiv,.V”Bar’i_ga’iore, wherein by the impugned
‘JV’~._Ajudi;I’enIe:ntrvi.and aeaee dated 13.08.2009, the triai Court
suit of the piaintiff — respondent herein
for_evict_io’rrElgziiilthe defendant ~ appeiiant herein from the
‘r._suit sChe:.duJe premises and has granted three months
“:Ef”_tE.rrie”‘rA’Ito the appeiEant herein to hand over vacant
possession of the premises to the piaintiff and has further
directed that the piaintiff — respondent herein is entitied
M
4
possession of the property pursuant to the lease deed
dated 20.09.2003, which was for a period of
It is the contention of the appellant w~
there was a supplementary agreehjent dated.fi2v5.”O9;_2oo3K”
extending the period of lease for a,-~pei*iod,_’of:nine:”yea?rs
from 20.09.2003. The tria!?C-o__urt hlasxgiverifale Afi.nd.i.ng«~3that’~.2′
since the said agreement isenot,registe.re:d, the same
cannot be relied up0n4_.”~~e.. Leiélrngedlh “c:Q’un’se_l submitted that
time may be gvrantedA.,_up_”to vacate and
hand over the4s’i.;:..i.t’ .scF:.edule prem’i’ses”‘t’o the res ondent.
Learned that the appellant is
readyiltompayi,e.nha”nce-derevnt_of Rs.2,50,000/- per month
as damages for.__.oeciulpéa-tgilonltill the last date given for
handing over_:poss’ess’ion:.of the premises and that the
“‘~._app’e.l’i’am*t~. would voluntarily hand over vacant possession
on or before the date that would be
granted by’Court and would not drive the respondent
“to file execution petition.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel
uijappearing for the respondent — plaintiff submitted that six
\.rQ
8
The impugned judgement and decree passed by the triai
Court remains unaltered in an other respects exvceptcthe
time granted for vacating the premises
fixed at the rate of Rs.2,11,6DO/– per month,wjE?ar–ti:esAare
directed to bear their own cost in!ithisieap.peai’:.4,A.i’*–h4e’~~a”Qi5e.aI.’
is disposed of accordingiy.
st 1 2 ma