High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr M Mahadevaiah vs Mr M N Puttannaiah on 30 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Mr M Mahadevaiah vs Mr M N Puttannaiah on 30 November, 2010
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOR1?;--..'p
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2c.)mm':' -1.
BEFORE 3  V p. M' V' '
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.   
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. I§I3o;éi20§:e'(EI_jEIn_   
BETWEEN : " V'  AA

Mr. M Mahadevaiah,

S/0 Muddaveerappa.

Age: 30 years,  ,

Prop. M/ s. Manjurlatha Traders, -. =
Shop No.1 (5O2)4"'1Cross_,  '
II Block Water Tank Read,  I

BSKII1 Stage.  §l" _ _ 3   
Bangalore-85.           ' Appellant

[By Sri K V  A.(fl'.\'/y:.,V.> fer appeilant)
AND V V " 'V '

Mr. M N Puitannai"-ah,A _

Age: 65 years, ,   *
S/0 'late M P.%Nanjundapp9...,. A
Residirxg at" N6. .502, '"4"' Clrossgw
11 Block .W'a?[eI" ".['a:1k« 

BSK III Istagég A. ' %  "

=:--v.Bangal0I'e_-85_.«    Respondent

 K A"Balae1I1a:Idar. Adv.. for respondent)

  RegL11ar First Appeal is filed under Section 96 I'/W Order

 4I:Y RzIl;¢M luéof the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgnient and
:. d'e(jIfe'eV.c§21teci 8.6.2010 passed in O S N0.4303/2007 on the file of



IQ

XLIV Add}. City Civil and Sessions Judge. Bangalore , [CCH45],

decreeing the Suit for ejectment.

This Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the"""'Court.

delivered t.he following:

JUDGMENT

The appellant, who is defendant in Sg-No:;443Qt’3’/l2O(l}”?lion

file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore -._City,l7i_sl” befccrel’

Challenging the impugned judgment anddeeree dated: l8:6.2lVQ1O.

2. As per the impugned the defendant

was directed ‘and. deliver Vacant possession of the suit
schedule preIri«ise’sl in respondent/ plaintiff within a
period of 3 monthlsufgrom the judgment.

3.; :L€~8′.V1’I1Cv’Ci’..(“,’:)vA:1’J”k’!S.’ofL’l for the appellant addressed arguments at

fglength contendvirig “_v~t’.ha1″once in two years, 10% rent was enhanced

Candi if evenl.”du1’i–ng”the pendency of the suit, rent was paid and thus

t:1fie’a’ppelAlant. isla permanent. tenant and tiherelbre under Section I13

of Property Act, the impugried judgment and decree are

L

liable to be set aside. However, he made an offer to vaeatie the

premises if three years’ time is granted.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent/ *’;sl1_Tatv

the appellant is not running the shoyppnand

possession of the shop and the suit for ej_vectme.nt lfiledl

and he has no objection to grant months’ ._ti”1ne the Vsttiiti»

schedule premises. _ — g

5. Learned Counsel fo1′,.–the appél-lE:i’f~1tf'{‘l_6f6ndEiIi*¢ submits that

at least one year time may be”g1ja’nte’dift:}3 \racat:e”‘and deliver vacant

possession oi”: the and in the event of granting
one year t1me’,j__thep pay damages at the rate of
“\”5,000/” p¢{‘.,q1()Ii1″1u’.–‘l1€l’l;€CV’t..’.l”l’0ITl 1.12.2010 till he vacates and
the suit schedule premises ie., on or

beIoi’e_’_3O§lY 201 3 .

Lear’ned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that

may be disposed off accordingly.

L

7. In the light of the above .s’ubr11i.ssion made by the learned

Counsel for the appellant and the respondent’/p1a.intii1′. t,heV.e§lp£tjel_1ant

is granted time to vacate and deliver vacant possessio1i”o«lf_*tlle salt

schedule premises on or before 301″ of November to

following conditions:

{1} that the appellant the ef’a111e1ges lliéegularly at

the rate of %’°5′.~~Q_O0/_~?”h_éI*:l:h*1lo’n.t.h with effect from
1.12.2010 tifl heVdelitiersillva-<:iéi'n.tx~oossession of the
suit scheduleig' prernises"l'.jtha't_V:'Vf'is, on or before

30.g1′”i.é:«oi’1 l: «I ” 1

(ii) ‘mat not create “any third party

int’e..rest in the.’s’uit’..’ischeduie premises;

;,’f.”{iii} 2,.tlhat–..éthelllél’F5ll3eiIant shalt voluntarily vacate and
it:o’efit?eAr:”_i¢acant possession of the suit schedule
p_r.ern.isies on or before 30.11.2011 without driving

~ the respondent/plaintiff to fiie Execution Petition;

{iv} that the appellant shall file an affidavit of
undertaking to the above terms within a -‘vv’e:eLk_dfrom

today; and

(v) that in the event of committing d4efaV:.ilt’V:vi’h VVpa’.y.wment ‘ j

of monthly damages by 1the:1..’ap’beliiianttin

the respondent/plaEht.i:fi’;..V_theAhrespohoi-en’t.;’shall: be at

liberty to execzuyte the..defcree–»..eveh “before; the expiry
of the time granted t’iI_l_
Accordingly, the Appea.l.._is-. di.sp_ose”d “with the above

observations, ——– M
i Sd/..:

IUDG§

No costs. ”

l”as