Parvathamma W/O Late Kannappa vs Lakshminarasamma on 7 January, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 7""! DAY OF JANUARY 29 
BEFORE X  A» 'A
THE HON"BLE MR. JUSTICE} RAVI Ax
I-i.R.R.P No. 1541/'A?£):(i%y9z  %    J
BETWEEN VT % X '

Parvat1'1a111ma. 

W/olate Kannappa, V

Aged 51 years,   .
No.22, Ground F1001'.  '
Girls School St1'€_Veft.., 1

KL1mara Pe11f}é..VWc%_ét_, . "  
Ba.11ga101'c-'56(_)"O20}. .     .. Petitioner

[By S1;-i' KAA Agiriga,  . 
AND : '
I. V .LaksIi'miVr1z2,15;21sém1flia.

 W';~"0.1at<3:"1\.f{« S C]j1a:1d1*ashekara Rae,
years. ,, ..... ..

*  1'1)/(5'.}atf:2'S1'i S Narahari,
A__£_~_§€C_i K30 years.

 §3i1'1  1*/21.N0.22, First: F3001'.
A. (T;'ir*'}...3 Sc:1'1o01 S€:reet,, Ku'111a1ra
' Park Vve-.st, B2111gge110re+560 020.  Resp01A1dents

Q?/}\,«-.--



'.7

This Revision Petition is filed under Section -46(1)
of the Kari'iata.ka Rent Acid, 1999, praying to set aside
iihe order dated 13.8-2009 made in HRC No.345/2008
passed by the VII Add}. Small Causes Judge at
Beii1gal()i'e [SCCH 3). 

This Revision Petition coming on for 2-ici'n:iiss--io'n
'this day. the court passed the following: "    "

Being aggrieved by the ord-.er  "iii

HRC No.345/2008 passed b'y'~e;e leariied t'SVriiéi.i'l.._(j;1i;1sels 

Judge (SCCH-3}, Ba:i_galoi'e.V_..ilf1€._ i~e_i'1ar1i" ifireferred

this preseiii. revision pletitiom  j.

2. Sri K A..Ariga, lieariiecl -eo*:i'i1se'l 'appeziring for the

peiitio}i}ei_'., ~::o_ii~'l.e-iidszi i3.'n.fa"i,i..__i_.l:e.l impugned order is bad in

iaw E11'}Cl ~lia'oie to he ,.se--i':Lv4:iside. He eonizerids that the

T1'ial.C()L1.1'lul}§1VS'r}(>'[ eoiislidered the contentions urged by

...4.,1',lie--- Cpe»ii'i1i.io"i1e1'/ He further contends that the

_"lVq_I.V"'l',_'('.'lV.l to Consider the fact that the petition

f=iioii required for the bonafide use and

(iec1i;i_p2i'Li()i'i oi" the 1'CSp()I1d.C1'1tS and only for seeking to

66¢»



w
J

evict: the petittoner/t.eI1a1'11 from the petition schedule
1.)1'em'1ses.
3. 'I'hough the petitiori has been served c)1?z.__ the

responde1'it;s, they remained absent.

4. On perusal of the impugned order  

Court. it. reveals that the eoi1'ter1't'ierA_1s--,urgeci.by*5the

landlord and the tenant h'é1=t{e:'*.v'At)eert §

considered. The Trial C()u1"tk'g'v--.W1*;i1e eor1s_id'eri=11grthe case,

has tzgiken into etettoimt the ztge; of"'t'he 1~"i?"1'es;)o11der1t
herein and that the sehetdule :p1*e--:niis'fes_'.'--is required by

her. is-.He151(:e,V'"if*,fee.im'tii'2aT;1 the Trial Court. has not

cor11111it,t.c2d,gi1zy er_i'or_ t:1'1]_d no interfereriee is called for in

 '_ Eii1f_-3*"i%1'11pL1gV11€dAO1'd..€1f,v However, in View of the fact that

 ' :;E'ie=.pet.itior1e1";. who is widow and has been in the

seieletmie'pj_1fr:inist:s since the year 1987'. it is just and

 1_;)roper to grant. nine months from today to vacate and

 }'1lV&11"laCi()\"t,'.l' the petitiion premises to the respondent;s

ogww

Si.1b_}’€(‘,ti to an ur2c1e1’i:aRi1ig to be filed by the petitioner
w1’t.I’1i.1i two weeks from today.
For the reasoiis aforesaid, the petition is ,1f@j§2t:.t_ed

in “terms of the conditions indicated above.

.L’-s««—.

B km .