High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Silk Traders vs Dr K G Nagesh S/O Late K C … on 18 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M/S Silk Traders vs Dr K G Nagesh S/O Late K C … on 18 March, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
 11* 1'"

111 'mu: 1-non count or xammmm AT BANGALORE
mmo THIS TI-IE 18h may or MARCH 2003
azmrr. ° 

J*i5"

.. _ -_._..nn

THE HOTEL" Hr. JUl'5T'I E M

BETWEEN:

Mn. 9i1kTrndnm.

Ground Floor,

No.34} 1, .J.M.Ru1a%f=%

  
   . 

Ased % A —P-‘=T1′”°NER
[Sr-i

5;» a me
… ….. .. v

I’!1’I.n.n.u

V
=

Ba;-agazaww as 9.. ….1=ms_ -2-Lam

‘ Ma-lam Nmrnin Gupta. mm

‘l’h’nHRRP’nfihdundm-Suction!-6[1]ott’t11o
Refit act. 1″»? mu’-at t’;-ma fififi’ -as-.1′. an-61-ea
dated 31.08.2007 passed in HRC No.21′?! 06 an the file
of the Bhiafdudge, Court of Small Cannes, Buqainrva,

Eli’

allowing the petition fihd all 2′?(2][r) of than KR Act,
1999.

F”.-1-uni -an-nan-In it’-In
Wm’ W Elf Ifijfllw ..

Th: I-IRRPcon1i_:ganforIdmins’nnt11’n

unaar s¢.«.:t.4ox;.3?! IMTi’%t11¥sk

1–.– -.-r’.’-.. V: -~»——-

_………’I…….n. 1..

Tue my feupomem us it
whamna monthly rent in moon!-.
The and he want. the petition
‘ ha Inn-IInAflIn_’l-g. %_ g_u__.,_n 9_q1I_._

vars an-II

»A _it in one that ha dual not have any

– accommodation to not up his dental

xii» am his use an: tho uchadula bum in; is

01:1. Hoixsrithtanm the request made by the

3. The respondent has entered appearance and

fihd Ha statement of objuclionu. Ho the

NI’ ‘Inna-‘llnnul and innn
‘VI mlf M Ilffi

rent

also. fiut inwuvur, denial tint

requires’ the petilion premises »

oncupation in net up B ‘; .

the peuuoner has a well eemma Jmicagar e

a.’I…….,
IBE-

EL

4. and Judge
has found has proved that he

….._ -.fl.._.._.!

um ‘ ox Inna.

–‘ L’……._… I…

ouou””‘i:iLii9fi m a.i’1e2ie

Aw-ui, hr the nu-pendent in home

A …..

I: ‘ ‘ L’ 4-»… .-….++…-
.57.!’ ‘Tel KI’? Ifijflil

V -In I-n’Innn an

an. in’. -{-u

AA I\lr.k!;,_V.Kumnrnwamy, ieurnati aaunei nppanring for

–t11}’3 reepondent, having regarding to the pleadings and
evidmmahtinbytimpanieuundtheihldhagu recorded

11

i4,.,

_{

thezreaf. Submits that he does not have: any uoafal
suhuzcduinnmmnkuinflxintau.

5. Mr.1umum fingunjn fiupfn,

appearhg R): the petitioner »

during the courts of

imhn __t dapaaad that L’

1,! 4;A_J_4QL …_.4._. a.1…… ……….–._:_……..

wuruln wanna Ina £i’i”” 9.5.9.: ‘..’l”.$

wldem-a was fiance he
subnzitn may be grnmad.

In-W the raupondant 5. right in

V’ – _ does not have any useful submission

mridunoe, the Court babw has found that

V::*;– ,.-:-was-..e-. is by :1».-.-, ,mt.1t_4.n..–.s.«- Q

set up a dental clinic in the petition pa-embeu. The

Finaidmquiremaxntcramntbaunidtnbaunrauaunbla.

I.-2.d_.eeé.tl.’.\.-:r_~¢.is I.I_r;¢.ae_11:e1Ilm_ac;’;t¢,:1’need. ,1)

4*’

Iruofnr an the grant

9..

t_.h.A;.t me.»
would certainly quit and cieiivenr
\m:n.n1: 7 out for an
altemnw into consideratbn

2…-z 1.~:._.1_1 3;.I_15:.2.oo9 to

quit ‘iii: grin’: -if this fi

uuhjgcf %a@pk¢mm’ t-tenant ran; an nflilnvit in

weeks ii-om today incorporating

TV ijmnditbm:

n1;-

thatthayshnllmatdriavuthnlnndlordiaofilnan