IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS ON THE 24"' DAY OF SEPTEM'BER 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRARE3ji';)Y.fo 6"
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. v17v2.8QoEh2'ooé.'4
BETWEEN:
Bhaskara Sait
S/o. Ganapathi Sait,
Aged about 67 years, Proprietor,
New Subramanya, Tiffin Room; « _
Cinema Road, Shimoga City--577?§0_1.'--. g 2 _ AA 'A
" A . Appeiiant/S
(By Sri.K.T.I\/Iohan. Advocate} . if V '
Smt.Jaya1aRshmarnma,'' f" 6
W/o.Late.H.Srikataiah,' ' '
Aged about '72 years, . .
R/o.O1d Post Office Road;~
Sh:-mega ~»~E"i77201.. " _
A A -- :Respondent/S
(By'S21'i.13'.'G_,SI'i1fam.Advocate)
ii3A'e._e"11ed'ale/s;1'oo of cpc, against the Judgement and
7 _ "D'evr:ree Dated 1V9..004,,2008 passed in RA.No.16'7/2006 on the file of
ithe EAddl.Ci.vii---.Ju'd'ge, {Sr.Dn) and CJM., Shimoga, Disrnissing the
* ~ appeal, and confirming the judgement and decree dated 09.1 1.2006
_paee'eg1 ir:,OS.No.334/2004 on the file of the 11 Add1.Civ1'1 Judge,
01" '1'4.._I)"n)_ Shifnoga.
appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court
V de1i_\fe1*ed the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the defendant before the trial A’
a suit for ejectrnent. The appellant is runniiig’ V’
business in the suit property. The:-tenarlcy’, Vlbeenxlp
terminated, the suit was filed for ejectmen_t,i.*A–A_V_A’ if
2. The suit was contested on “s:.eV–‘eral. V.gr–O_1V_1nVds
that the notice of terminatioh..yvas”lbjacljinllplllaw afindthat there
was no relationship of ftegiaiitji.,’llp_’_These issues
having been held the:5appielliantpfAthe same was
affirmed by ivcou.-rt and hence the present
appeal. . f V
a3. learned» c’oi,1r1_sel for the appellant would submit
thatthenoticeVofcttermination is invalid, in that, the appellant
i..gs.prunni11g”‘a hotel’j_b}:1siness in the suit property, and therefore
_l_fi~t.ys{ou1d be a firlanufacturing purpose” for which the property
‘ be*ir1gputi~1ized and hence in the absence of a contract to the
. the tenancy would be deemed to be year to year and
months’ notice was necessary in terms of Section 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act, whereas the notice issued was a
for 15 days notice and therefore was invalid. Secondly;
the property belonged to several persons. Notice ‘
issued on behalf of one of the owners.’ was.”tl§ieref0iie,’i’v.,
incompetent and the suit could not hm ‘~ . by”
plaintiff in that capacity. It is furthgerlpcontended the
alternative, the Very relatiorishipcilolj ‘laiidlard and” tenant is
denied and that this having the appellant.
was on a misreading ofthe eyidensce ‘a:ndj_’the_:pleadings.
4. On the of;herIj_y.hai1d,___ the –._ie:arIied counsel for the
respondent would contention as to the notice
being in valid in ” 106 of the Transfer of
Property neVer__raised. The objection was only with
regard ..the.__’not.ic’e.__having been issued by one of the co~
them. This has been negatived by the
_flcoui*t$ belfowvh; hvliurther, in so far as the hotel being a
‘i.rrianufacturing purpose and therefore notice of six months
it compulsory in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of
Act, it is pointed out that admittedly the tenancy
was month to month and the Section itself would indicate
that it is in the absence of a contract to the contrary that the
condition of a six months’ notice would arise. Therefore,_d”it_li~s
not tenable to hold that the termination notice of ~
invalid in law. e
5. Further in so far as one c’o.~v.lo*.vnei~_:
competent to institute the proceedings_l_’thVe have
categorically addressed the reliance on
the decisions of this court Hence there
is no ground there is no
substantial consideration. The
findings are do not warrant consideration
as substantial (fuestion this Court.
6, VB3rCw5:§-3: df.’replyl,”‘the learned counsel for the appellant
would-. seek i’tol’p1ace.reiiance on a judgment of this court in A
it{IS”KRISIFIf~JAM_U’RTHY v. c N REVANNA, (2009) 5 KCCR 3816
Vcthatwsnotice issued in compliance of provisions of
10$ of the Act enures to the benefit of the successors-
‘ . _ iiigtit-re-;i
7. Incidentally it is seen that the trial court has framed
an issue as to whether the plaintiff proved that Sl’1(3.4vlfi’i”-.t>ll<_3
landlord and that the defendant is a tenant underhertq .
suit property and from the pleadings_,an_c_l theV"inat:;crialV'_' "'
record, the trial court has concluded' t;h_'at'lV
dispute about the relationship. abeintg
question Whether one co–oWner pWas:A."p'.c.ornpetent'vvtogtssue a
notice or not was not an court and
therefore cannot 'Lbefore this court
and in any eventiit Vstfiisptantial question of law
for consideration." is rejected.
8. l”lowever4,’°inV the in.terest of justice, the appellant is
granted’ one Vyearfs tinitemtto quit and deliver the vacant
property having regard to the fact that
the appe’ll_ant_v’isVfriinning a business in the premises and
W”ther.epfbrep to “relocate and establish himself elsewhere, he
sufficiently reasonable time. Accordingly, it
reasonable to grant one year’s time to quit and
“‘*inp_°V,aeate the premises. This concession is in spite of vehement
6
objection by the learned counsel for the respondent who
would submit that when the appeai is being dismissed–.__on
merits. the question of granting time to the appellant:Vi2§}ouId’t.V
militate against the interest of the respondent i
seriously prejudice the respondents”interest
submit that given the circumstance that the
chronic defaulter in the paymentiolf rent’,..V_Wotildn7_beV yet
another reason to deny a§’i::y'”~”S1I(f1lHV’bég1’Cfit,’bgjnglllgitended_
Notwithstanding the seriousAVobjeVct.ioVn:l rai.s’ed,jv would be in
the interest of jus’;iice;,to gifant As far as the
payment of’ there is a serious
complaint that ‘-the is a chronic defaulter in
payment of .. rentf he’-s’hal-1 therefore pay arrears of rent
‘t.h”‘e,courtsmbelow up to date. and shall pay the
rent oij.e_1.year commencing with the rent for the
lglihtohth e£’t«oetehef;’ 2010 at the rate of Rs.1000/– per month
as; ‘co
nzpensation for use and occupation of the premises for
one year in one lumpsum and the same shall be paid
:advance with the rent for the month of October and for the
11 months thereafter.
9. Accordingly. the appellant shall quit and
Vacant possession of the premises on or before.–A4′:i:*30,£–“ip;Vi«’i’f.’)”1
subject to the above condition. The :app’el1an’i
affidavit in compliance with paymenifloi’–._dfhe ddiarpfears ”
advance compensation shall also-v..oip:.imdei’i:ake ‘V
deliver vacant possession :’with0u’t” ‘airiyu”fi1rthei’*noiiCe or
proceedings on or before shall be
filed within four
The appeal fiacco1’ding1y.
Sd/-n
Judge
akAd”.’_: e »