IN THZE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 9??! BAY 0? JULY 2eQj9__' A. V
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE K P§<KES.¥tiA'-fAP§;AI%;*§.4§'z?§;N§§.~ V
R.S.A. No. 602 o'f20_<_)9..-5
nmwmmn: ' %
1 ARMUGAM
S/0 LATE swAMYm':'HAN"' -
AGED 35 YEARS,
R/AT MASJID STREET; %
CHAMALAPURA -_
NANJANGiJI.': jrewr-1: ~»~57.f1..= 301'; ,_
2 A. SELVA~.KUE'e§AR ., V *
S/O'ARf9£Ui1C}AM'f M
AGED ABQ'U"1{'~«S6' yEA;2»s, %
R/ATAMASJID 'L4fE'.RE§:',_T~;{)
CHAMALAPURA 4'
NANJANGUD .'r§)w%N--5~7 1 30 3
5 " . APPELLANTS
«€31-IAR, ADVOCATE)
...._--.......-.'
_ 1 SR1 :;A;ze;§:§ADAsA SARVAJANIKA
V}I)YA';RTHI NILAYA TRUST (REGJ
.. ROAD, NANJANGUI) TOWN
_ REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
'SEE. K.N.NANJAIAH-571 3041.
I RESPONDENT
V’ gay SR1. Y s H mam’, ADVOCATE )
THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST? THE
JUDGEMENT & DEGREE DTD: 16.03.2009 IN
R.A.N().74/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
DN.) 85 JMFC, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE.
CONFIRMING AND MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT :’S-.N}3
DEGREE DTD:13.11.20()8 PASSED IN OS.3′?’;’v’2CIQ8″‘VON
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
ADDITIONAL JMFQNANJANGUD, ‘
THIS RSA COMING ON ADMISS
THE COURT DELIVERED TI-IE
This apP€.9.~1 ” .& 2 in 0.8.
No.37/2008 mi; Judge (Jr.Dn.)
and Addifidnéii is directed against the
concmmfit below decreeing the suit
of the directing them to vacate and
“V1’i.-.=x_11d+«’:{j)§§r’A§1;§../ tile H schedule property to the
x respondent] plaintifl’ filed the suit for
” f);oSSes»3ioii and far recovery of arrea1*s of rent finm the
–djef§3;}§iéii1ts intaraiia on the gonad that the defendants are:
tenants of the plaintiff-trust in respect of the suit
4scheduie premises 911 a monthly mm: of Rs.’75/- and that
1?
(..L2. * «DN;}–5’AND 1 x
DAY;
the tenancy of the defendants in respect of the V.
premises has been duly terminated by isstdzig’
required under iaw and though theWnot:ice_« ,
on the defendants, they have ::;t1fie
demands made therein, as suajh«,.. _t}1eVEiefenda;1;t’sA~;e;’e ‘Ii-ebie L’
be evicted fmm the schedule
3) Defendant 1′ of the 211″
defendant. V’ were served on
Defendants- Vfigefendant No.1 remained
absent The 211°’ defendant
though evVppeared*V~”t1ia1 Court, faiied to file his
writtenVstate1dn;eI§t “ef grant of several epporturfities.
‘V’I’heref’ei*e;,.,’thee– proceeded to record evidence of the
T. judgement dated 13.11.2008 decreed the
1 V’ suit ‘ and directed the defendants to vacate
_ .. deii’s?i::3.?__3:i’1e Vacant possession of the suit premises to the
and also directed the defendants te pay Rs.300/-
V. the arrears of rent for the period of four months from
‘V””~.Ce’::ober 2002 to January 2003. Aggvrieved by the said
judgiem: and decree, Defendants — 1 85 2 filed a;§pe,e3 in
RA. No.74/2008 on the file of the Civil
Nanjangud.
4) The Lower Appellate
sides and on reeppreciationd ’tile era} ‘
evidence, concurred Withtlle of theitiml The
Lower Appellate Court 1%’-..S?jte of afiording
several opportzgrlities, felled to file their
written to contest the suit, as
such, contending that they did not
had suffieient Jeontest the suit. In that View
‘V of the; filattert Villoxyziver Appellate Court dismissed the
the decree passed by the trial Court.
the concurrent judgments and decree of
V ii the Defendants -~ 3. & 2 have presented this
5} Sri. N. Manohar, lwmed counsel fer the
-éippeuants contended that both the Courts below have
committed serious error in decreeing the suit of the
without affording reasonable opportunity to igfie A’
to file Written statement and contest, ‘4 iltviis ‘ ;
submission that for the reasons
defendants could not file theift time i
allowed in law and V ,.–t,lioug;_h”‘ilitI1e’ll”-»appelia;fits-‘Vi produced
sufficient materials *seAp;_xe11ate Court to
establish the foij the trial Court
and for statement before the
trial Without considering
the saiiie.’ ‘ giefspecfive, has erroneously
dismissed tlie-. appei11.AA’-._i’Aeeordix1g to the learned counsel,
” the ought to have accepted the
s.:b_j; the appellants for the failure to file the
i it statefiieiit and eught to have remanded the suit to
trial for flesh disposal in accordance with law by
further opportunity is the appellants to fie written
‘=-swteftement and tie contest the suit. @/
periw by another 60 days on being satisfied _4:a1i3otit~._Vvthe
existence of sufficient grounds for extending *
within an outer limit of 90 days, fi1e..defendefit ‘ .
file his written statement. Admitteéiiy
not filed within the outer of days. Lower i
Appellate Court has notieed o7.o6.«2o0s , the case
was adjourned to 30.oe.72%oostft:§:;1d:i’ie’t1a§net to 25.07.2008,
18.08.2008, o1,09.2oo8;ii1i§2Qie9;2o’o&xand then to
04.10.2008. ” the plaintifl’ adduced
evidence V.-:m. of these days, the
defendarits have the trial Court nor made
any attempt’ to tt1’i}eV’t§,_1e’.3e\i’71*i.i”:i:en statement. From this, it is
~e1_ear A.z;:;r;;)o1’tunities were afforded to the
V’c1etei:ia’ants:to”veo11test the suit. The defendants could have
trial Court on any of these days and
Court, as to why they could not file the
“statement within the time allowed under law and
eould have sought permission of the Court to file
statement. No such attempt: appears to have been
e
made by the defendants. Under these the
‘Trial Court rightly proceeded to record the
plaintiff and disposefifiwof the on ‘_t;’ne4.: of
evidence of the piaintmz In an Edie. traa tttape-:e A
defendants are admittedly tengntstx of €:he_Vsene(:VlAu.le *
property and since their t_ by
issuing notice as _ Court was
justified in orderingV’evietion. er fmm the suit
Schedule court after
considefingv 5 pnt~forth by the
appeflantsj failure to file written
statement eonteet._ suit, has rightly held that the
–‘defend’a:mteV’ that they had no opportunity to
file i€?:itten._’st;aten1,_ent and contest the suit. The defendants
have tffexnsekvee for this situation. It is not as if
that ..1e1:1d.1ord the present eviction proceedings
defendants for the first time. It is not in dispute
..__”t’i.iatT:the respondent/ plaintiff commenced the proceedings in
year 1987 to evict the appellant] defendants from the
e
suit schedule premises. Initially, the landlord f1Ie,_’1§.:
petition under Section 21(1) 0) of the 4′
Control Act, 1961. Though the said 4.-i’,afi64_:jt.o ‘ ;
allowed by the trial Court, the
revisional Court on the gouno ‘-ofV;afi’io11Eimefit ‘
brought to the said Act, once: the
said Act had no _;uz~:sd:ooo;f; of eviction in
respect of tho ogoooao aj ono:~1tab1o Trust.
Thereafter, the attempt to evict the
dorondaotoovbysjjogoogonoooit the Court of the smn
causes. {sass decreed by the trial Court,
again it wss3§evo1fsg3dA~«._loy~~–“nfl3is Court in Revision petition
“‘ul1’1Ade1″i_j 13 kor–s;o Small Causes Courts Act on the
Causes Court has no jurisdiction to
moss for ejectment in the light of the law laid
« «giown by” Bivision Bench of this Court in_Sa.mjamma,
Vs. KJK. Venkatwh [ ILR 200? KAR
Vt . This Court in the said Revision Petifion directed the
of Small Causes to rotum the piaint to the piaintifl’ to
10
present the same before the juzisdictionai.
Thereafier, the respondent/plaintifi’ took returrl
plaint and re-presented the same before ” ‘ 1.
Civil Judge (Jr.D:’1.) at Nanjan§n,d,?’_A_’w:hieh
numbered as 0.5}. 37/2008} As’ui__1; on
13.1 1.2008 and the said, eapneh .a§fE’:rmed by
the Lower Appellate From this, it is
manifestly clear had a long
innings lfiigafion. Under these
eircumst;»’..E1ee.e; the appellants were
not afi”o%r{:Eed” o1§portunities. The appeilante
had ample therefore, they cannot be a
“‘W–e–..nt of opportunity. In that View of the
m.atter;» I” “error committed by the Courts below in
of the plaintiff and directing eviction of
. appeflejnts/tenarlts.
‘ ‘7;”’ I see no merit in any of the geunds urged in the
T memo or in any of the contentions raised by the
‘ counsel for the appellants. The appeal does not
%a/
ll
involve any quesfion of law muehless substantiai of
law. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismise:ed’.-«lv:- _
8) – Learned counsel for them for l 7 AV
gent of reasonable time for the
hand-over the vacant V. _
Admittedly, the appeilariie. schedule
premises for more than viiIfiiie_’.-appellants have
been contesfiflg ‘ liiiigaltiiiiiii th.e.:l.§lle.st two decades.
Landlord hae possession of the
premises; 1 Wyeare. Nevertheless, the
appellants’/l’tei1ants– to be nmning a cycle
_ shop the piiremises are required to be granted
time to vacate the premises. Taidng into
ceiieiéieratioi}.__’die”facts and circumstances of the ease and
the leiig litigation between the parties for over 22
_ 4; :q,;g,%,:’:!3[‘*¢”;i,e of the opinion that the interest of justice would
if four months time is genteel to the
” ~ éippeliantsj tenants to vacate and deliver the vacant
ll possession of the schedule premises.
12
9) In View of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
However, the appellants] tenants are gnnted. feur Lfionths
time from today to vacate and hand-over
possession cf the schedule ‘M
respondent] plaintifl”.
KGRC’