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
