Loading...

Shivayogi vs Saleem on 22 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shivayogi vs Saleem on 22 September, 2008
Author: K.Ramanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAI)

DATED THIS THE 221$ DAY' 91+' SEPFEMBER,  ~

BEFORE

% ms HOIVPBLE MR JUSTICEJ§{§R'AMANNA:SSV:" 

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL 112/  . 2 " 

BETWEEN:

SHIVAYOGI  .
s/o CHANNAPPA sALAGAre.,_  _ _ 
AGE51YEARS,OCCBUSiNESS,.   ;

RESEQENTS OF NEHRU MARKET,    
DHARWAD,DISTDHARWAD-;"'--v._f -_ <_.,A:?'PELLANr

(BY SR1      " 

AND:

SALEEM, S'  4' .   'H  S
3/0 GOUSMOEIDDIN savaxwn
AGE QSEEARS, c.cc:Bus1NEss,

--vV.REs1nE:m's'oF P.B;Ro£_sp,.v
 .V [;z4ARwAn;S'ADisT DHARWAD. .. RESPONDENT

"(13fYv":»;{1§1M}M;MAL»§c;:, ADV. FOR 0/ R)

S' ,_?I'His_ R§GiJ1AR SECOND AFPEAL is FTLED UNDER

V SS _SEC'E'I€E'N  CPC AGAINST' THE JUDMENT AND DEGREE

DATED 5..9.'2008 PASSED IN R.A.NO.16]200'?' ON THE FILE 0?

  PRL. CEVIL JUDC:E(SR.DN} AND CUM AND MACT, D}-IARWAD

 ' DESMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT

''  DEGREE EDATED 31/1/2007 PASSED IN O.S.P§O.458/2093

 =..:'.)N"THE FELE OF THE ii ADDL. CIVIL JL¥DGE(JR.DN) AND JMFC
 _II COURF, DI-IARWAD.

THIS REGUALR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR

HADMISSEON THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FGLLOWING:



JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is med by the é ‘

challenging the judgxnent and dec1ee»~d.a_ted

passed in R.A.No. 16/ 200′? on the tile :5:

Civil Judge(Senior Division) and D§a_«i§aew:§§§gm..thé
learned Civil Judge has dig;;uissed%_i§iie»t:apmaI%by:
the judgment and passed in
O.S.No.458/2003 on t11e:.Afz.3.;=…_::c3f”V–«Vt3’1:e_ Civil
Judgewlsmior Dhaxwad wherein
the learned of the piajnmiz

I’€SpOIld6I1E’Z:fOI’ _ ‘

2. .. ‘I’he4″4″revsApotidei2t the owner of the non-

pieméses CTS No.220/MP’ measmiag 32

No.3371 situated at Fort, Nehru

According to the respondent, he

” suit property under the Iegistered sake deed

¢1av:;s;1.V:ttt:;:9.12;199*z for valuable consideration of

V’ .Re.;’1,S%1,000/~. The defenam being a tenant under the

_x;}’ez1der of the plaintiff one Smt. Iravva Benni on a monthly

rent of R3500/-«. Since the respondent stopped payment of

rent, HRC No.3/21300 was filed by the respondent and the

5).’ /”‘ r ?

same was dismissed as abated in View of the repeal of the

Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and coming into &;;1+§{“qr

the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and though the dcrega¢n;g’:§’¢é;’s’

served with legal notice, he neither mplied Z K I

vacant possession of the suit pmpcrfig} nO r J

of zent, therefore the p}ail1tifi.-I§i!S_pOflkieIA1:f*..f.iICd suit” ‘V

the above said reiicfs. ._

3. In pursuance to the _§_10tjce,V_»issued . tire trial

Court, the defendant th;~cxi;g);Ai,§m;;;se1 and filed
written statement _eontendi3§g:~. ‘ had no

absolute ” _o1.’r’£V:¥*’ vthe suit property and
denied the plaint and sought for
dismissalvof A VA :

‘ E :4; . trial Judge, after considering the

con.f.e3;_§tA3:1$ parties and the oral and documentary

év_i(1cnce »o§1:.recont decreed the suit of the plainfifi directing

fiéfcndant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit

and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/–

‘V V ‘4″t9§§?a1fls arrears of rent to the plaintiff. Being aggzicved by

the said judgment and decree, the defendant-appellant
preferred R.A.No. 16/ 2007 and the learned Civil J11dgc(Scnior

Division), Dharwad, by order dated 05/09] $008 dismissed

the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree

the learned Civil Judgewunm’ 1′ Division), D_h§:g’m’ « e,;.;.g;;eji _

().S.NO.458/2003 and fmhcr directed the~”‘dcie11:£’ic:11tAV1c:’4″‘~

vacate and handover the vacant AA

property to the plainfifl two ct” ;

the said judgment. Being ccecuxxent
finding of the Courts bgaiaw, ‘VAdc{cx;Lj:iant preferred this
appeal before this Court. H A» ‘

5. for admission, it is
takenupffcif consent of the learned

counsel V h

I “i1ca.n_i’ the learned counsel appealing for

the concurrent finding recorded by

V n ; Admittedly, the respondent herein is the owner

firemises in question as he purchased the schcdufied

j under a registered sale deed dated 29/12/1997

3 “from Smt. Iravva. It is clear from the material on record that

the respondent had filed eviction petitcn in HRC No.3] 2000

. /
‘7” . ‘

which came to be dismissed as abated in View of of

the KRC Act, 1961.

8. The appcfiant is no?-;” eei_io1;e}y -Laiajauezgg’ ‘

mvnership of the mspendent in of

property, the only ground “by the the V’

appellate Court has hand (we: 1:113 vacant
possession of the . only two months
timehad been V ‘V ”

9. 11-1; the respondent has not
denied belonged 130 one Iravva
and the ‘admitted purchase of the sand’

by the Azéeeponéflent fiom Imvva under a registered

being a. tenant under the sand’ Iravva

under respondent by operation of law,

_ 51′ the schedule property, but he neither pend’

feutenor vaca” ted the premises.

10. Duzing the course of arguments, the counsel for

.. Lvvthe appellant submitted that the appellant has dcpoisted

armaxs of rent of Rs.18,000/- before the txial Court. The

learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that

the respondent herein has owned a business premises of his

own and to shift the business from the schedule

his own premise, he requires some more time

granted by the lower appellate Court, themfore__it_’isV b

proper to grant reasonable time

and hand over the Vacant of ‘V L»

premises to the reepondent-decitttegholder. ‘

1 1. On careful on record
and the judgxnteg-fqgff égtvvtvthc outset, two
months Court to the
appeIIa3;t”tov in my oonsiszlered
views? 2 gametes and 1 hold that it is just and

reasonable 3 axfipixttts time to the appellant to vacate

, ‘and Vhzgzndever the’–‘va_:_<;aut posession of the nan»-residcxttial

V ' V _ E iespondent.

“!tcco1di1agIy, the appeal is dismissed. However,

H u qxxotiths time is granted to the appellant to vacate: and

“ever the vacant possession of the nonqesidential

5′:

_,_.,,;’/ _ ‘1

premises to the xcspondent. The appellant shall §fae–s§1§:V”

handover the vacant possession of the scheduk: b

the respondent-plaintifif on or b¢;:;m c}’1;o’1_/:zot:§;–

Th?

respondent is permitted to .g’Ai£2;)€)si*:’;é£i~ ‘V %» ‘

by the appellant towards . 1 /.3
Iudg5

Kmv

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information