Jaya Kumar vs Vasantha on 26 May, 2011

  AGED ABQUT ;.:'1iY:zARs

  SAND}£SHj_ V
" » 5,20 LME VLNAGARAIU

'  ' ~  AGES ABOUT :27 YEARS

 

I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL_(§B:EV_
DATED THIS THE 26* DAY OF MAY, 201:T% f f f  
BEFORE %m~_ k
THE H()N'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. 
R.s.A.No.979;é§1I. % kk  

BETWEEN: VV V

IAYA KUMAR V

S/O LATE RACHAP1?A    - _   

AGED ABOUT 53  _ _     

R/AT NO.1Z79O,1$3EV»7_'NC>.'2('i2,  V   ' '

AKBAR ROAD} MAND3;;_MoI1 ALi'A' '. 1'  V
 "   

. . .V    ..APPELIANT
(By SR1 G.BALZaKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.)

_.¢3ND:  2 

 VASANTHA*. "* .,
1%} LLATE -\f.'NAGARA}U

 ._A;G_ED_A}}OUT 35 YEARS

  smresa
" --« Sztii LATE VNAGARAIU

 



4

tenancy is net <:':u1j;,= terminated; piaintiffs are not entitled. 

Inesne prefits, the defendant has not agreed to ha1i€i"'c§wfe--£:: _
possession, the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by'fe5jzi::E'Cef3.v".Qn 

these grounds? the defendant opposed {he  55

the basis of pleadings, the Trial =fraIned'..t.he:

for its consideration:

1,

H/72etf2erV the p[;z7jz2f1l€fs* lzéroiy/e  have Iawfizffy
termjiieiednlh 'n'2e"._rezzanefwgf' }nZ'e.___de1%nd3nr and 1'1' 50

w];iéérh_.,.»':-.  p]aj;=9V:}'23% eziflrled to the vacant

 "p'o:se5'5'j0n"rhe-- .5fU1'2f sC?2'e'd~.u"1'epr0perty.7

"Ilj'Y 2e:"1'2ezf'2.'1(1.2"i:'17§ are ejzafriea' to Claim meme

-- . pr0n1:s: a12d jfszé-arvwflar rare?

" Sn 

A 'AH/Zlzeffzer the pfajnzfffiv prove that the defendant had

 egreeq? 1&5 bend over the vegan: passessfen of (Eye suit

\.__"5:'§Je'dz11e property afifer determmazzbn 01' tenanqy by

z  efflazx ofzjme, along with the C01;75'rrzzCt1'0n made by the

defendant as: 3223 awn C0565?

 



4. H/'?2eti'3er the ::iz_/'5 of the p]a1Zt2tifif§* is barred ;§?X{s".._'€fZ€

pm}: czpies ofrea ~jz1a'1'Cata?

5. W723i order or a'eCree?

4. Before the Trial C0utt,l'.plai.ntiffs 

witness as P\V.l and got markevdr*E.xs,Pll  lldlldefendant V

examined himself as DW' The
Trial Court after hearingibeth  appreciation of
pleadings, (ital  etiiidelneeglllpassed the impugned
judgment    and granted four month's
time tollvpaeatel  premise. Aggrieved by this

judgment ofltlzeilfriai the defendant filed an appeal before

 Z'thellfiiistihépplellate  in R.A.N0.649/2010. The first Appellate

lCc$t::it« dt1«dli_eap'p::eleiation of entire material on record passed the

jndpgiifieentppdisltnissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and

  "  ef the Trial Ceurt. Hence this S€C€)I1Cl appeal.

 



 .§ §\\\\§\\\\x~\x\#33: .



7

adverse decree is now not entitled to contend that the Ttj.ai. C-otnft

has no jurisdiction.

6' It is not in dispute that defendant is the tenants tindetj 

the plaintiffs in the schedule premises 
The Trial Court on appreciation   on
record rightly concluded  "defendant is duly
terminated. This  courts below is
supported by' I find no justifiable
ground    defendant admits before
the Trial A'Coiirt   premises is a commercial

premise and same' n:i_easure:; more than 14 sq.1nts. By Considering

 thi:s"e\_7idenCe 'olirecord, both the courts below concurrently heid

the: the prdiiisiions of Karnataka Rent Conttoi Act are not

  ':ippiicabie.A'In the Circumstances, the suit against the defendant
 i"oefot_e_:A.-'the Trial Court is inaintainabie. In the facts and

  eingunistances of this Case} I find no iiiegaiirg or error committed

 



8

by the courts below. There is no stibstantia} question of 13%; that

arise for my consideration in this second appeal. Therefo.:i7'e;._t'i1e___ _

appeal is liable to be dismissed.   ._

7. At this stage, Sri;Ba1akrish'na Shavs5;:j§;' '1eat:n"e<f

cousnel for defendant submits may be
granted so that the defendant   the vacant
possession of the s_eheI;1u1Ei. tjgfiVuggavinttffs/respondents.
Having   nature of building
and the  fllview that some reasonable
time is robbed' grarrtedsforithe"'ejipellant/defendant to vacate the

schedgiie p1"en1is"esV_stibjec9.': to Compliance of Certain terms and

 ::ondi_t1ons;, Forthe reasons stated above, the following:

ORDER

1*? Appeal is hereby dismissed without reference to
respondents/plaintiffs.

ii) Six rnonth’s time is granted to the

appeflantv/defendant voluntarily to quit and deliver

iii)

the vacant: possessicsn of the plain: scl1ecli:’le;§.:fezfl1i.:g:s %

to the plaintiffs without clrlvlng them clie” ‘

execution proceedings.

Appellant/defendant shall ‘pay . jthe ellcice =3r~rea=:S’ V r
rem: and also the clo_r_ic:1;rrent’reVnts _as§ ..an’d_”whe:i the * V

same accrues with gir:Ӥ<.:_clefault.. 'till lithe} schedule
premises is xv/a3.c..é:1tecl.*l__ _ _ _
Appellant/defe1flClla.nt hélllall or under let or

in§lucET.V;l§"1y tliirdg pelt}-*'«iIltci_'thVe_§l§jhedule premises.

i'Ap:)'€ll5l1f£fCl6f€QCléi11t_ not alter/change the
~ .1§.a'i§urelimd '<':llarectef"vefvEhe schedule building and

'– 'shall e5E.,Carrj7*af1y illegal activity.

che' appellant/defendant shall file an

" via}

"éicd¢e:ed accordingly.

unclerfiakingl by way of an affidavit within two

Weeks from today.

eeie
ieégg