IN THE HIGH COURT 01? KARNATAKA AT BANeM.QRE
DATED THIS THE 25:2: DAY OF MARCH 2995; T
BETWEEN :
Si*i.Ba'x:r-.1 Rae,
Aged about 48 years,
s/o.sn.Nmayanappa, % T. :
RangasWaIn:ve'!*em:J1¢ % L T T T
S'? ", Avemie e
" ...PETI'l'IONER
- esnmmédnar. TTTTT 14 .
Aged a?u'£:i:t_5l._yca1"s,
Sio;sr1.Adi:a:naiah Setty,
No-"3*3. Anchepfif»
Bemavaxnla Temple Street,
W F' .V Bang.-gala:-9-wseo 053. . J ...REsPoNDENT
‘ Q ~ : ‘pay sS1_’i.M-.J.Alva &
Sri.Nagaraj Hegde, Advs.)
‘1″-min H.R_R.P. in filo:-I nnilnr Rnnfinn Qf mg
.I.J..I.l.D ID Ll-1\a\L s.|.u.u.Iuu’ n.n.pvu.\.ua
T .K.R.Act,. 1999 against dated 22.12.2007
passed -on: i.Ae.-i§’o.~Ie i_n-i-TRC No.-3S2j:2fi07 on the iiie of
the Chief Judge,” Court of Small Causes, Bangalore,
…a.. -9 –…1 ‘n.._, ……. -……
CULII: U1 Civil rn.1u:I’.’.1uu:.
dismissing the I.A.No.1 filed under Section 10 ofthe
This H.R.R.P. coming on for admission; 0*
the Court made the following:
I-Q-nan Ilrnus I-‘Info ‘ i”‘I
-1′ .._. flit! ._ A, no no’-nnnn 5+ ..
-I-I-SC; I-J-all!-I-I-K41 VVIIB J..l.Bl-Iuhl. Lf.I.”.\ \J|Ju\r””-\Ju£r’|gJV\J_SJu ‘V£_Ll.n In-uIJ.I.r
request of the petition,ex”s was
directed to be listed on t%04.0s3§’200s.s 04.03.2008,
counsel was and adjourned by
one week. was adjourned
“1’iC” lhe l””””‘i”‘:’.’: “-G’i.’ni”1″”‘.’1 fer
.. ‘.s,…..’l’4.I….”:3–.’…,..”‘_ ‘.’.t..-.V.’.: 4-I-…}L’
1 .uLgv._.u g;_:-,u:_u.t.1§1 u I.
the petitzensr Aj_:n_ot«. On 19.03.2008, at the
Iequest of the the matter was directed to
today l.e.}”QV5.03.2008. When the matter is
e.:s;;r-.’:: 1. .1 i…r_I the.
for the is ‘liiT”cn.
‘ respondent is n1″‘e am L13’: 1″ ant rec
.3- , -.– ……..—-..-_..–.–.._
_l’I
ll” the facts relating to the filing of this petition. a
f”(.
3. What is questioned in this petition is the enter
passed by the learned Trial Judge ‘
emllieation of the mtitioner under ‘pi’. K
4. ___e 1e_,,-._dent
iii q”t’:fi’t”.1′”1 “”i 15.12.3393. %C-
1212/ 1994 was filed. entered
appearance on the
ground V’ is of landlord
and The said application
was was directed to haw
the said dispute in a Civil court. The said
~srdeg?’* was questined by the respondents in HRRP
this Court. This Court dismissed the
re-em d,….t_ tiled o,s,no.6724;2ooo in
“the an-:1 Conn seeking a desist’-atitri e-* ti–re is s jmai
Fxfelationship of landlord and tenant. The said suit was
on 13.07.2007. ‘I’hereai’ter, the present eviction
petition is filed. The application under Section 10 is
onceag-ainenLheg1.~emdt!na.tLI1geisnojural.
‘/1,.
rreiation hip
Judge having regard to the past history,
was right in rejecting the said application.
5. Another grievance of
counsel appearing for the is VA
petitioner has not deposited the __
6. Indeed if the the
rents, it is Opefi. necessary
1999. itjis petitioner’ nae’ not IT” ‘ his
objections” Hence, on
22.12.2007, it objections are not filed.
coiiteritions the petitioner propose_ s to
E5
*3?’
I
E:
i:
L :3.
E3′
3′
D
<2
4:
(‘:9
H:
L
3.
3
E
3»
3
1
3
ED
L aifln
~V |J”lI-t”._
However, the ‘petitioner snan’ ” file the stal:c1n’ en’:-of
objections to the main petition within a i% u
weeks fiom today.
On filing of such ol)_jcct1om;”‘ the
,I’uuI
‘U’|.l\.I
r3
D
:r
E.
1
§
1.
5.
I
‘1’
3″
n
uua.u w…..uu. .4… pmécfidizlgs
thereafter.
It is also open 12;; ‘to’ 1nake
necessary application Act.
‘ u’:~il-‘I-sis-\ an-ix:
‘l’r.!._l.I.u.I.J. £4; Luu11u~;.iI ”