IN THE HIGH comm' ow KARNATAKA, DATED THIS THE 1411! DAY 01-' NDVEATDDR; £2607 uuvo«w THE HON'BLE MR, A D R.S.A. Nd.-§'65s OFQQGT S1NCl:;_jD!::(3b;ASEi): 3Y*~L.1(3kiil$.i£:AMAGALUR %% A A4 sr;aT?NAoAMANJULA 'W;-0 T s RAG!-IAVENDRA A 'AGED 32 YEARS BALAHERADWANE 1:! 11 ROAD TIPTUR [By sn A R DESAI. ADV. ) AND: 1 A G s PADMANABHA s/o LATE SIDDARAJU G AGED 59 YEARS R/0 M G ROAD CHIKKAMAGALUR cm; 2 G s NIRMAL KUMAR . s/0 LATE IDDARAJU AGED 54 YEARS " R/O M G ROAD k % RESPONDENTS. (By an SHELGAR. ADV. ) THGRRREAGRDMLEDDTwe;100 OF cpc AGAINST THE JLIDGEMEMR G DEGREE 20.8.07 PASSED IN R..A;NOAG.DV"i:'56/:65 'QB-Y CIVIL JUDGE (SD), CHIKMAGF?;LEJ_R,H THE APPEAL AND 001*!FIRM'ING'A."'THE AND DEGREE DTD 28.3.05 - PASBEDEN 03 59/03 BY THE PRINCIPAL, own. JUDGE; (.:R;DN), CHIKKAMAGALUR. DECREEING sUrr"EoR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION. %RTHI«*s SECOND APPEAL COMING on FOR E T_fiDMlSSIQN.. THIS DAY, THE OOURT MADE THE R . " FOLLGWL-ma: JUDGMENT
This is defendant’s appeal. Plaintifis respondents’
suit for ejectment has been deemed by both the courts
below.
fly
2. During the course of this judglraerlt…
would be referred to with reference to
trial court.
3. Facts leading to of” can
summarised asfollofiys: ,
The plainuira possession in
respect of The case or the
was a tenant in
property. The rate of
rent was Rs. The plaintiflil need the suit
honaiide use and occupation. Hence,
2 * . issued on 30.12.2002 calling upon
vacate the said premises. That was not
done. the said suit is filed.
K _ The defendant has contested the proceedings by
the written statement admitting that he is a tenant
under the plaintiifs on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-; but
the other allegations am denied. It is the case of the
defendant that the father of the plaintflfs was the
advance amount of Rs. 30,000/- to one H T But
however the father of the ptainette to
Therefore, the father of the J
32,000/- ae advance let”the
premises to the rent of Rs.
200/-. Hence, he wound plaintifle me not
entitled for I
5. trial, the eeeond plaintuf
A ” and the son of the onginnl’
defendé’ntV_’wae~. as DW.1. Exs.P.1 to PA were
on the pmtntme and Exs.D. 1 0.226 were
% of the defendant. The learned trial
” consideration of the evidence has recorded a
A Tfixidjngthatthe termination notice is properand ithas
sewed on the original defendant. Consequently,
idecreedthcsuitwhichwasconflrmedbythelower
appellate court. . %
.—~~-:*T'”7
6. Mr. A.R. Desai, learned counsel
defednants (L.Rs of the original
the defendants have been AV
suit schedule property 432 He
that the notice is _ V V. H V
7. I have deaees of both
3. A clearly disclose that the
tenninatjon ‘issued tmder section 106 of the
T._11Aet been served on the original
I am of the View that no
A” of law arises for consideration in this
stands dismissed.
Stil-
Judge
AJGJ:
26- 1 1-200?
A perusal of the [wane
when the appeal was
counsel appealing.’ for was
absent The to be listed on
19.11.2oo7.t:3ut, for the caveatm’-
was directed to
be the oounsel for the
__not pmesent. Appeal of the
sins dismissed. On the question of
~Me.«A.R. Desai, learned counsel appearing
‘ ;V”t’:csrAt.”1:t_f=’ui.;’IPt§eLl..lant-texaant submits that the appeflnnt has
on business in the suit schedule pmemises
2. Having remrd to the fact that the appellant requixes
sometimetofineanaltemateaooommodatziomldeemit
proper to extend the time till the end of November 2008,
fl
-e*””_–;–.:’
subject to the appellant filing an undcrlnlmgf of an
affidavit within four weeks,
conditions:
1) The apwmntfiafmt lnsn
party mm the
2) He shall go rent towards the
use and bf premises;
3) to file
4) He .:_::”‘exten_.’ t sion of time.
sd/-1,
Iudge