G V Venkatarathnam vs M/S Marudhar Syndicate on 23 October, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF OCTOBER._.'2OQ9
BEFORE ""H%

THE HONELE MR. JUSTICE B.SREEi$i'IVA;§1if,. Goxvm ' 'E   

I-1.R.R.P.No.296 df2OO8';(EVi1_'A' .1".   
BETWEEN:

G. V. Venkatarathnam... _
S/0. G. Venkaiah Sett3r_,V:." % e_ V  
Aged about 62 years,  '    _  _
Residing at No.'?.. PraV.ee:1.Ma1'1siQn,"v_  ~ 
VMain R0ad,v€.}ar1dhi';r1aga15; ~ " " '
Bangalore ;»».~. &:.60s';jQQ9. ; %  _

_ V » A A  »  PETITIONER
(By Sr.i..**S;   Kumar, Advs.)
AN  _ . , .

M / s. _Mar'1i<:1harV 
No.15; B.V.K.'"Iye'Iiga1* Road,

 *  _'B&%1galore .-- 560" 05-3;
~. , (Rep by j.tEPartner
'  Mr. "G  'Jiin éi_K;.1mar,
' S/E... «Geeizvarrchand Jain,

 Bangélsfie -- 560 053).

Aged a.b.m'1t:--_.4O years,
No.15, "'B.'\'/QK. Iyengar Road,

.. RESPONDENT

{By H. S. Somanath and Associates by L.K. Malini,
‘ Advs. for Caveator Respondent)

=f==i==i=S==k

ix)

This HRRP is filed U / s 46 of Karnataka Rent Control
Act, against the order dated: 28.08.2008 passedfinp I-IRC
N0.-‘-158/2007 on the fiie of the XVIII Add}. Judg.e;~.C’o1;1zjt of
Smali Causes, Bangalore, SCC–4», allowing.~theV._p’ctition

filed U/s 27(2][a) and [r] of the Karnatakae-u’:Rent’Actgffor. 4_

eviction.

This HRRP coming on for h.e§s}rifi–g,’1′.:h:s-VVd.gy,.:.p:ti1e ”

Court, passed the following: _ _
The petitioner aggrieved -A.i;:)3-riuthpe order the trial
Court in allowing the Vevictiojiii’ =__HRC No.45s/07

flied by the respondent to vacate and

hand over of the petition premises
in favoijr of the has preferred this petition.

2. _’1V’he responderit_»4″~Iand1ord have brought an eviction

“v..petitioIi1*-tinder ée’C”.’2″7(2){a} and (r } of the Karnataka Rent

after referred to as the Act for short),

see-iting» ~evi-ction of the petitioner from the petition

It was resisted by the petitioner by filing

:sta–te*0ment of objections. The triai Court after considering

-~.tl*E1e oral and documentary evidence on record, by

impugned order allowed the eviction petition both under
Sec. 27(2)[a) and (r) of the Act and directed the petitioner

to vacate and hand over the vacant possess_ivo,n’~«._oi?.vthe

premises in favour of the respondent. Agg;ieved»1’rj’byg:”vthe;

same, the petitioner has preferred~th.is it it

3. Subsequent to filing of this

has paid up to date rent to _respondent’-.an.d'”noiir he

paying rent at the rate of’*”I;és;-3;OQO/–A”per.-vrnonth, as

enhanced by this Court theV”ad1nission.

4. TvhedvIearnedd;’§Co1_i’r1«s_el appearing for the parties, after
arguingthe matVte1A{for”srorne time, have agreed to settle the

matter as ‘:

f€SpOi’1d€D.t’~ landlord has agreed to grant 2 %

‘years_ the petitioner ~ tenant to vacate and hand

favour,

over” vacant possession of the petition premises in their

The petitioner — tenant has agreed to vacate and

hand over vacant possession of the petition prernfise’sA in

favour of the landlord on or before 30th April–y4’:2O a

to the following conditions:

a}

b.)

The tenant should pay;”14th:e’r’ent’~.ai1d

charges as and V’-Xrlien they bec’on1jev…_Vdu_:e

payable.

The tenant :with or create any
third party interest’ of the petition

scheci1:leypre1i1is::s;”‘

” Volnntarily Vacate and hand

over’ Vaca’1fr.t”l’p.osse.ssion of the premises to the

landlord’ dragging the landlord to an

it ‘exec1i’tin.g Court.

‘:l’.3:1:<;f"~laridlord have agreed to refund the advance

of Rs.I0,000/– (Rs. Ten" Thousand only)

by them at the time of tenant occupying

~ the premises to the tenant while he vacating and

handing over the premises in their favour.

%