RSA 50423069 111 THE HIGH mum at? KARzIA'rA1€A_.~ ' Q r.- cmcwr smzcu arr " -- Cf " DATED was THE 1911! DAY ol§'».,3A',§l1£;IiY,_h'2G0!'§"~ f; & ; BEFOR_E«--.. V _ V THE I-IOIPBLE 3_.s;r2.'i?:1_1}': " mama Betw6m'§= " " Shr.i.Shric1ha:r Pac3:i1ié1;;T:.étb Bizatg; A: V. Agc:Ma3'or, Occ:B'oL-sin<:s*.--s, V ' " R[o:12/A, Datt.a,."ii:u;;;j", Road, R.P.D.Cross,~--Ti1a1cwacii;,. * " Belgaum. 1" 7. V ' ' APPELLAKT (By Adv) And: 'V apart, ' ~.Agt.=.-: Major, Doc; I:h1sincs$, R,f_o:"12 i Efiiafiaput Road, V' . . . RESPONDENT
any may for cim;
” v V ‘ .. ;This”appcal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the
_judméI..1t and dctcree dated 30. 10.12008 passed in
‘R.A.I’éo._:?;91/2&5 on the E}: of the III Addi. Civil Judge
” “(Sr.Dn.), Bclgaum, dismissing the appeal and confirming the
T judgment anti decree dated 31.08.2085 passed in
“uO.S.NO.15/2003 on the file of the IV Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.),
«Belg-aum.
RSA 5042:’2i}£)§
3. The defendant resisted the suit stating that the ~
not maintainable after the Karnataka Rent Act, * M
into force. It was also urged that the etightiiete.
filed a petition either under the I¢Le1jnata4°1:.aiRent
1961, or under the pm-visions of Reiiti All
the other allegations made ._the_’ a1e”dex1ied. It
was urged that the oecupatioxr was continued
by the famfly of 3thc;.¢iefenda:¢l~ana”*eig:sM pxamm did not
implead all t11e€.gee.§eiE3eie”–nf was bad for new
joinder of V
4. In sup1.~ert of p1aintifi’ examined himself as
Exs.P.1 to 13.5 whereas the
A”yc_1efenda:;t’Ae:;a:iii:ied himself as DW«-1 and relied on Exs.D.1 to
Vifisii had also taken up a contention that
V . notice”– 11/ vs’ ef the Transfer of Property Act was defective,
M K .:ie£*eesarjr~–*iesues with regaui to the validity of the notice and
regaxti to the application of the provisions of the
Rent Act, 1999, were framed.
RSA 5042/2099
the members of the family of late Padmanabha wereffiiot» _
parties. I b’
7. Counsel appealing for the
judgment and decree under
8. Having heard. the and an
careful ctonsidexatioxg of I do not find
any substance i;3r’..t:i;ie’ learned counsel
for the appenafeg. submission that the
Ren t” to the instant case.
9. Though i_4t”isv the counsel for the appellant
4… that ai; of the property was used for :no11-
unless the extent of the property made use
of purpose was established to show that it
V V was 14 sq. mts., the trial Court could not have
W “jinisdiction. A careful perusal of the written
filed and the evidence adduced as referred to and
by both the Courts below wouid reveal that no
A ” contention was taken by the defendant stating that the
premises was less than 14 sq. mts and was used for non-
J%,,
RSA 50423909
residcntial purpose and therefore the suit ftgvafij”
maintainabie. Under such circumstances, it is nQ1;__<§ p::n'f§r
appellant to advance such a contcntien:vi;1{V1:'1it:«s;e{=:<)n:{¥.
10. As regards the other contenficn. novfi-jpizgficrji %
necessaxy parfics, it is seep that a att §;mpt is
made in the written statsmvéfifé ..§§1_:¢i1Ma cofifcfifion, no
issue is framfld in has not
insisted for isiisué any steps to
lead cvidc::.c:@-inj’ it is not open. for
the defenéiant that the suit. was bad for
nomjoindcr (if At any rate, it is feund from
\V fghe fipgfgixggs mcdrzfiéd’ by ‘both the Courts below that the
the premises and has been in occupation
pfemiscs subjecting it for his residential use.
V In sfich tfiirrfiimstances, the gound urged cannot be
H ” .44″cg$13;n?r;na:1::é:d. No substanti.-a1 question of law falls for
[cbifisilsfafion to entertain the appeal 11/ s 100 of the CPC.
VT ‘fleniee, the second appeal is dismissed.
RSA 504252099
11. The appellant is given four months’ fime tn vagatét’ ” K
deliver vacant possession of the premises on condit;i§§il.V ‘
shall pay rents regularly and shall not
party into tha premisas and shall :_naintaml’~A’r*~.th¢
good oondifion without causing ..;lamagc}” ..V_’l’hé:’.=
shall file an afidavit in tlolV£:ir:li¥}er the
pmmisscs on or bcfargw within a
period of two week__é.4 ‘l’;;;_
Jml ~