High Court Karnataka High Court

M N Raviraj S/O Late N P vs D Omprakash S/O Late D R Dhanoji Rao on 25 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M N Raviraj S/O Late N P vs D Omprakash S/O Late D R Dhanoji Rao on 25 November, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
{N THE HEGH COURT 0;: KARNATAKA AT     

DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY' QF'ANG*'JEi'\§B;ER;'   

BEFQ3_g_;  T % %
THE HONBLE MR. EUSTICE;§NAND"BV?{R,;€R;E;§)£$Y
HOUSE RENT Rgvzsizm 249,426 cézoae

M. N. Raviraj,        
S50 Late N. P.      
ResideniufN0.94i$?§f.D ' é  'V

II Cross, :71:  "  - _

Oppusilt: 10 P95!  _ '

Mysare %    * PETITEONER

(By Shri, S. Pa£i§V3£:d §agadi5h S Paiii, Shii. Vishwanath

_ VS Pati!,.;fkdve:caIes} "   """ M _

   % 

D' 

V   Ssh Late D._E('. Dhanqii Rao

2%.}. 1594,..K.a.bir Read

' "  1 'A"L,a'S}31€;ir M{:£ia!!a
 .__§'v€3%5c3re""~«_.  RESPONDENT

Séhri. K. R. Nagfinghs Abizbackczr Shafi, R. Shaina, Adwacaitss

–. 141:3;-»?’«.é?s Nag Asseciates)

!§$$$$

gm}: a’§:’er2:”:é’%0rs 0}: the prcé9¢::’§es as énafzs {Ere efiécf ‘ ‘M

0f»::}2ar3g§r2g its’ éderysisy 9:’ c?’§!??i§£,iZ§’}’3if1g :’?:_:’ ‘ff.

In iht: revision pciiiiun, fix: Co:{r£__ 11%;’ heié,

qtzttsiiofi whether ihc resp0:3dez3£4%.::i’12iI3i £1ai§._c:ém~;¢d .’::§u%3s£:n3iiai

damage to {he premises, a=::§:::p_£in;r;V.i§%g<.§ igéii mxxicn
door had been repiaced M¢Ammgm¢r};;;gs;a; the iiicd mi'
had been raplacczgi Qwzsid 11:35. ztsuii in
any damage ii is an admitted
fact ihai :-fiiV;1'"aii¢3.:3, ii does not have {he

cfftzxci of fiiiafigfing ur diminishing iis 'mini: 333:}

£hcre{'0zf-j.g "es§1<3w€;d "'£31_:f,="19t;t\=*isE11 prciiiicm and SUI aside {E36 urdcr of

v.§3VI’;i§ii’1}I’i. Ii’ {his-..which is umicr ch:-xiienge in Eh: preseni rtsvisémw

pe£iii{$i:.._’ vv ”

” AA [Thea C-Savage! far the p¢::£if.it3ner- wank} x;:m£er3d ihai iherc “E5

seiiartafi dispuic of this msponécni having sanétd (mi aitcraiiuzi

1311 iii}: pmmiascs. On [Em questien wheihcsr, ii has cazrégtcd éianzagc {£ be said

Eizai Ehc peii£i§3§2.§f §:r:-23′ {xiii my saga, the rwspondcni Ems Hui

-V:.::;;us¢d/i’§’5n§g._f§§2::3122gcAA’i:;’s’v–£%:–:::V pxuperiy and the change of the duct

§}’:t§1r23 £tT £1: roiling shuiiar does not have: the effect of

or diminfishing the Vaiutc eraf the property.

g’f}14l$ft?{£3!’t7,.. lower Court has righiiy held that having rsgzird £9

“4!fiéL.-“«v’£A,t=.2″s,¢,’:r’.ff.»;)I’ Section 27(2)(!), the order cctmfd not be sustained.

C311 {heats rival cunteniious, it may be men the CU!”17£1}’10fI

aspect which is to be {hand bath undrsr section 2I(i)(c) of {lac

@

12

puriiun. Qn this, Eht’: Ccmnsesl fur the rcspundttnt nt3’iT:;:3€}T; V’

ciarifitsaiiion as £133 6’E=’§i3fi{3fI pe£§£iun:”i&%3S” ¢c:§:i«t£air;:«E3: “%:.Vl];§iif:!§.Tt7 has

change: in this user am} {here has”E>%-cgfiix z§ii¢.;ré’iE{_>1§; #i%CVd[iUH
anti change in user may rt::i§;’£t:_ it) gsf pécmiscs Eu:

this dam nut :*es£1'§g:i the   pggiiiun in that
poriiun, H      

 AAAA      sal-

 av