H S Srivathsa S/O H R Srinivasan vs Umdulla Sharief S/O Ishuk Sharief on 24 August, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE Jzf-WAD  'if  it _: "  

HRRP No.204/20:10  ; 
BETWEEN   at

H S Srivathsa,

S / OH R Srinivasan,

Aged about 40 years, V x

R/a.1\Eo.3448, 13' Main,  

6th Cross (New 3rd Cross],

Gayatrinagar,    _   A  1  
Bangalore-56O Q10,   1.    9 '..7Petitioner
(By sn Ganagjathi» S"Shastfi,A'}'xd§f..]9*-_ '

AND:

Umdu11azShariei'.'  T97  V
S/o.Ishuk sha1~a_¢r." % '
No.281_,/,5, 20:1: £3/lain,

v4..v..\«/ijayariagar,  _
 B*a:1Vg"a1or:et--=56Q 040. """ " ..Respor1dent

  is filed under Section 46(1) of the

Karnataka  Act, 1999, praflng to modify the order
dated..__3.6;20.1'O passed by the learned Chief Judge of

 é Small Causes, Bangalore in HRC No.138/2007 by
7f.direetingv..«t'he respondent to vacate and hand over the
_ Vxiaoaritopossession of the petition schedule shop to the

' .petitior'1er instead of within six months.

2%"



T his HRRP coming on for admission this day, the
Court passed the following: 

ORDER

This is landlords petition against the ‘

3.8.2010 in HRC No.15-38/2007 on tile file .o’£gtherA1§ar;1§a’Vg

Chief Judge of Small Causes, gBangalo-re.’r.

2. The petition is posted for

3. The main grievanceflof landlord is
that though the granted an
order of eviction–i;i_n;»’g_his” six rfronths time has been

granted {to _~ improper. Learned

Counsel wouldp further that the respondent —

tenantghas st:ib’-let the lprernises to someone for higher

against Rs.l,500/–, which is

paying.to’4tfi_ie_ petitioner. It is further urged that notice

V .was issuveid the respondent on 27.3.2010 regarding

H ” but he did not participate in the proceedings.

the learned counsel has pressed this ground, it

are

is noticed from the proceedings that the ground ._ of

subletting is not urged before the Trial Court.

petitioner sought for eviction of the .

under Section 2’7(2}(e}(g)(h] 8: [r] of

1999, without raising the ground of

succeeding in obtaining the
landlord undoubtedly c.ontin.ueE the
proceedings on one }’he ground
urged in and
unacceptablef” are unworthy

acceptan(:”ef’ Heinceu,Ifthe'”1’eir’isiori'”petition is rejected.

Sd/1.

Judge