A (By s;-:3» SRINIVASAIAH, ADV.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated: This the Tom day ofAugust 2010'
BEFORE " G
THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE V.JAGANNATEAfé T
R.S.A.N0.1650 /M2010 .- ~ . QT
BETWEEN: '
H N MUKUNDAPPA.
s/0 NARASIMHE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS {THEN}
R/A NO. 346, 347, NEwtNo~:12_2',~- j E
PROP: ANURADHA MILITARY HOTEL," 'T _
KALA}\/[MA TEMPLE sTREET,'j* : _ " . .
MANDI IVIOHALLA, MYSORE, "
[SINCE DEAR' EX':-11s=:LR:s}. '
3.}
/ 0. LA.T3_N MUKUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60_YEEA13s.
b} M _ A
~s/o LATEF1' N MUKUNDAPPA,
~ AGED ABOLTTE38 YEARS.
' BOTH R/A NO.346, 347, NEW N0.M-- 122,
* A1'€URAD}.vL'3L MILITARY HOTEL,
' TEMPLE STREET,
MANIM MOHALLA, MYSORE.
' APPELLAMS
_5M T LAKSHMENARAYANA,
S /0 LATE M T THIMMAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
l\J
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE,
GKVK, 13ANGAL0RE--65.
RESPONDENT
(By Sri c LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO, ADV FOR c/In
THIS RSA FILED U/S 100 OF CPC,’AC&AINSfP T2:E-
JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED*’A24′.42.2rj1Q’.t%ASSED?1N”-,
R.A.NO.92/2008 ON THE FILE 012* THE:
JUDGE (SRDN) MYSORE,.= DISMISSING .
AND CONFIRMING THE J’UDGMEN’T._’_AND ‘DEDREE
DATED: 13.2.2008 PASSEDAT.E\i:A’fo.S»..323/200.5 DN THE
FILE OF THE V ‘E: STvV’.c’1Vv1i};;UDGE {JR.DN)
MYSORE. -A .
THIS ” C103/i11$i.G ‘DAT V’ED’R”‘ADM1SS1oN THIS
DAY, THE–c§D;U1ré*I*;:.;DEL1SfERED”THE FOLLOWING:
V
4;’ “Heard ‘1e.afDed’v’cDunsel for the parties finally in
“the appeal preferred by the defendant in
In View of the Short point invoived in
this the appeal is disposed of finally.
2. The appellant was the defendant in the
K frial court in the suit filed by the reSp0ndent–p1a1’nt1’ff
for possession and damages. The suit was decreed
%
,,/7.,
and the appellant was directed to vacate and deliver
vacant possession to the respondent–plaintiff in
respect of mesne profits, the trial court
enquiry to be held as per Order 20 Rule7i___2
The lower appellate courtfflon” ‘ ap.pe:fll,:_”
defendant, confirmed the giudgrnent of
and the appeal was ‘The
filed by the plaintiifvtras appellant was
directed to pay’ of rent.
3. icotirilsell ” l Srinivasaiah for
the « that the courts below
committederrlor the evidence in proper
perspectiveirlp so far as the arrears of rent is
» :’eo_ncernedp,l “iI__1 as much as, the courts below did not
H account the evidence of PW–l and as to
from date the appellant was due in therent and
2 referring to the trial court observation at para.19,
lgsubmission made is that the trial court was not
convinced of the exact amount of rent that was due
31?
/
as arrears by the appellant and no document was
also produced by the plaintiff to show that
Rs.50,000/- was paid by the appellant….xLo’:’_.”the
plaintiffs father. Under these
judgments of the courts below ball j;iritei’fer,.ent:f.:tg:ll X,
4. On the other learried
Lakshminarayana Rao forll’ _Vgrespenidentfrblaintiff
supported the View ‘below and
submitted that V there– regard to
landlord _ if both courts have
concurredlf apart from the admission
made * in the course of their
evidence. As “such,p:’the suit was rightly decreed and
» iasfar as arrears of rent is concerned, submission
if appellant was in arrears of rent for a
long. and this fact has been brought on record
2 through the evidence of PW–1 and notice was also
‘issued to the appellant as required under law. As
such, the judgments of the courts below call for no
9/
interference. However, learned counsel also
submitted that, in the alternative, the respondent-
piaintiff be given liberty to work out his V.
respect of the actual damages to which be
entitled. However, the appeilarit
the rent as was being paidcby th4e–.appellant’;, 1
5. In the light ofpy.t.h:’e’v-aforesaid’S’L1b§I1iSSi01’l
made by the learned”couns_ei»l:lbrV–‘theV:parties and the
courts “facts concerning
the land;lo’rri«._ V_r’e_iat:ion’ship and the trial
cou1″:t__ having-flrnadlep”an’~observation at para.19 of its
judgment to the” the appellant did not
his tenancy under the respondentwplaintiff and
» lwas ~ as rent, this court in second
‘–a.p-peal’, th.ei:efore cannot interfere with the concurrent
findings of facts, moreover the said findings are based
2 ~ on«–..the admission made by the appellant himself. It is
also not in dispute that the respondent–plaintiff
%
stepped into the shoes of his father and was
collecting the rent.
6. As such, the appeal is 1ial3_1§_’4:Vfo:u:’be~.
ri
dismissed in so far as challenge to the ,4 p V’
the courts below is concerned}; B’ut._howtever,_Vas”‘no
time was granted by the cotitts below
appellant to vacate and hai’1:d;’»oye1o piteinises,
taking note of the rent
that was paid,_ six be reasonable
for the over vacant
posse_ssion?’t’:;: ‘ «.:f§spondent–plaintiff. Further,
appellaiatppal_s’o”vi7ill:: pay the rent at Rs.500/–
petgfnonth as V.1Vnventi:~3ned by the trial court at para. 19
»A and the said rent shall be paid till the
H Vaeates the suit premises. In View of the
made by the learned counsel for the
it ~ fe’s.pondent that the respondent would work out other
Vfremedies available to him in law in respect of mesne
E’
. 2′
profits, the said aspect of the matter therefore is left
open.
In the resuit, the appeal stands
giving six months time to the appeliant ”
hand over vacant possession to.A_t’:he:, 1’esponc}.-e_nt5i.’
plaintiff and to continue .to-pay Vt1=..,eV’rente.’tiIE_: (fate
of vacating the premises /– The
rent shall be paid Vbgathef-.appveiiai1t”from the month
from which its’-was due, shali file an
affidavit __iN’eeks, if this Court, in
resp:e’et'”‘of eontentions and shali not
drive”the«.respon»¢ient:piaintiff to any further litigation
in regarc1″to_f11an–dir”ig over the vacant possession.
ail ”
WEDGE