High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Manjunatha vs Sri Girish J Babu on 3 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunatha vs Sri Girish J Babu on 3 December, 2009
Author: A.S.Pachhapure
 's;::.-1. Gixiéh Bzabu,
 850,23; .3aya3:am,'«-..V
fiirzffiu , "ATgea':I> 8;§§(§'L'1Vt (21% years ,

.w

3 HRR? {€0,161/O?

IN THE men COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT 3ANGAL:>;é'_:~::. '~._4

DATED THIS THE; 0329 pm cm DECEMBER' i--2oC{9 '   "

TI-IE HC)i'~I"BLB1 MRJUSTEEEE AA;4s.ré.éu:'HHz2_1D'r51§E '  

BEFORE 

HOUSE? RENT RE§ViSE()N PE'_f'§'3'§{)N 'NQ.1:§1T":)§-igveog 

BEETW EEN

Sri Manjunatha,
Sfox Nagaraj,
Hindu, Aged about 4 years,

Manjunatha Hctei,   

No.98/'2, 23¢ Cmssé,
Laggere Main R_«:*w'.--;-.r;'i _

Opg tn) Anmikéfhana' 

Laggere, Ba:;gaio~r§¥'3€~QO5$_,   " 'V 7

(Sri. 2: mum, _;ad?x.a.; '  '4

AND

§fat"E'*%&2..8"3:"*>:;"'T5.?°'

Béevgik,
Rajajirzagar, 

'  Eangaigre 

 ~ '~ _  B' L. "S§:r::1j€€v, A&v..)

 PE'I'E'§'IQI'~EER/'8

 RESFONDENTXS

i§§i§£

V' "This ir{RR? is flied unéer Section 416 of CFC", against the Qrder

 .__ 'cfiatV€';;<:i:28.8.2QG§ passeé on
 *.«}.ud1g<:--Memb&r, Motor
*.dismissing the petitien filed unéer Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC.

Aitciderit

Misc. PetNo.18Gf08, passed by £123
céaims Tribuxsai, Barzgaiom,

This E-ERR? caming am for Admission, this day, the Court,

made thrs: fallewingt



3 amt? NG.161,/o<;2

ORDER

This revision has been pmferred by the petitiqgxééff’

against the dismjssai of 134$ appiication for scttiiig

cxparte: eréer sf eviction obtained bvjf'”fi1€ I’E:S{pO§1€1§§3L#v?\b’§ –.1?£RxC&

80/ 2608 dated 8.8.2008.

2. The counsel for the péfiiés ‘1:avé~.n§w’-Zfnégi a Joint
Memo wherein the _2§gré,c:: 1 ‘fQ vaczfie hand
ever the possession of the 011 or before

03.1;2,2(}1f) to §%,}:::AA,3~’:ind:},ozt;, herein’ The

petitioner} hag ag§:}éa?:{:§ to; pay the arraars of rent of
Rs.19,110A;’-_iI:MVfiV::V_.és§§3&f14″1fii£3§t}11§a’ installmemts starting from

01.01.20..1€3 ” {fie They have also agreed that in

c:as;e’,”ifA’pc*i°{i1;:i0:1t:1;Vf’:éi1$ to pay even a singie instaflment, the

to Sfitiki eviction ef the pefitionerj $611311′:

{mm pv¢titié;g11T:: premiges. The tenazzt has aisa ageed to pay

.Ji.7i:;c msntfiijg mat regtilarlgr on at before 2991 cf evexy mcmth ané

has agreed to pay the aévancfi ameunt ii) the

.___”‘it:I3;é113t at the time c3f°s.?acati:I1g the schedula pmmises. It is

u 7t113:.d&r mess circumstances that they have agraed far ciispesa}.

emf thfi petition dimcting ths petifionezrf tenant to hand ewsr the

ERR? r~;g::i;.1_5’i.;’o9r

possessima of the petition premises on er befczxfc V.

subject tax the conditions stated above; _

3. In View of the Joint Memo §’C’1Vlc:§i. é.1’T1c1 T§:1., i:e~.t1:fl«S

confiitions izlcorporated in the ti:t:VAV}_3:tiii(i§fi”si:a11ds”‘ V

dispesed of. The pefitiancr is digfeafgati. tb..§1and” c:vt=;r ,;t’£1e vacant
possession of the petiti0n’ ‘p£;€m1;zg§§.,.’¥b#5: ‘£!§5f::=Ife 03.12.2010 to
the landlord, thfirespanriéiit’ 7 go on paying the

arrears of r(i_tnti»Qf .§11ffi§e installments

starting ‘O vierd and if the tenant fails
to pay instaiifiialiyf, .1;$31di()rd is at iibxsrty ti) seek ‘$13516

evictian of V’*::–‘£”;Va.5′: the petition yremises’ The

pefiticzfiei”/L’t€:1anf ‘z1}.$Q pay the cturrent rents regulariy on

:i;s£%:i:’Vm:’ €\?E’3I”}’ mimth and the respendttntj landlord

aéfizfinca amount at the time; Whffiil 1:316 tenant

vacafijs Zsgislieduie prfimises. T115 petitiorn. is accordifigijg

VA T _ ‘ ‘{§ iS§C)S€i§;

Sd/m
JUDGE

;}L

a-«—\