High Court Karnataka High Court

A M R Reddy vs Suersh @ Suri on 7 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
A M R Reddy vs Suersh @ Suri on 7 September, 2009
Author: H.Billappa
. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 7"' day of September, 2009 B
Before

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H BILLA1é1?gi_' '  in

Writ Petition 2567 / 2009::.J(GMfA'CPCi  

Between .'

/°{r1:EReddy S/o Muniswamy, 57 yrs
# 39/2, Maalli Tank, Bund Road
Bangalore 2 
By GPA Holder ~ Surya Prasad __ 
S/o Nanjappa, 50 yrs  " 
Business, R/o # 39/2, Mavalli Tank " _ s   V __ 
Bund Road, Bangalore 2* V   '  B'  I   Petitioner

(By Sri Basavaraj ) __ 1  

Ana':

Suresh @ siiiyis/p.o:si}v::1da_;?'aj:ii  . .
40 yrs, R/o #V39/2,4_Mava1liTa.nk.Bu'nd'Road

Bangalore 560 002 . Respondent

(By Sri Bniraj A C, .Adv,)V " 

V   Wir&it_i:Petivtion is filed under Art.226/227' of the Constitution
pra;nfig'_t.:d "q.Ltét'iih ui¢a..9'_n1er dated 12.3.2009 on IA 2 in os 7301/2007 _

   anneitureiii) by  City Civil Judge, Bangalore.

This"W_rit Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the

 jcaju:~£:niau¢. the following:

L/.



ORDER

In this writ petition under Art.226 & 227 of the Constitution.,”‘»,the

petitioner has called in question, the order dated 121.2009,

trial court, on IA No. «Elm OS No. 7301/2007.

2 By the impugned order, the trial courtihasirejecieed .;the:”appljcatVi’on

filed by the petitioner praying to direct the respondent herein_–v_to”deposiE’.the ii

arrears of rent. Aggrieved by that, petitionerhas filed this petition; i

3 The learned counsel for tiitetdpetit-ioner corrtiended-,, that the trial court

was not justified in rejecting tll,§*~tVztPP1:5,’Catic11;’»,,_ v_a1,so,v”siubmitted that the

respondent in huigevi.iarrears,Vof–rent_ and -therefore, the trial court ought to

have directeddvthe responder1t_ iher_ei’n.”to pay the arrears. He therefore,

submitted that the irnpug11ed.’–order cannot be sustained in law.

4-, As-iragainst this, the .ie_gt_rned counsel for the respondent submitted that

the t»:i2tl’eou1t., rightly rejected the application. He also submitted that the

respo1:dent,’has”disputed the relationship and therefore, it needs to be

considered’ at the trial and therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the

it it ” ‘app,lica.tio_n anditherefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.