HRRP No.38] 2009 86
MISC.C'JL.No. 192{2009
.. 1 _
IE THE HIGH CGURT OF KARHATAKA. AT
DATEB mis Tl-IE 2ND DAY or APRIL I ;
321'-'om: Q
THE HOWBLE na:a.JUsT1cE:;:1J-1.<f§gt§e,§ms21iV:_': '-
I-i0USE_ RENT REVISION ps::zrxcm__;_____
§;§c.cv;.xo.1§gy.,mg9
BETWEEN: K
1 Sm' S?xRASWATHi D20 LATE i~'§"1=5BA.-z§A;a _
AGED ABoUT43YE:Ai2g~w--v..V:'V -_ v_
R;'£.'I'N{}.46§;E',EfBL.C?CK§ :
LS'? sTAGEV,j--.BA1§;:;v*1_rAANTA? 4. '
HUDCO, §=AYS_c'33R'i%';'3'__ V *
w0mr;1Ns.5s._TI;AcH:~;R ._ V
GOVERNMENT :4i;::,£_.31-.i E3C'r:I_O€3L--...,_,..
I'~$IZ£-MIA, LASHKAR M.OHALLA .
2v1YS©RE:' " ' -
:2 S22: 3; S JAG;§;l}§SH _
5,520 LATE SU'B:3A RAG
' _ A._GEr:;..aE:.;3uT 40' ':'=E--A'RS
' «_R;.aT":§05_4z:a9_, BE: BLOCK, 18'? S'T:%.GE
V f:5;%F€I%E.{%¥i£3gE'€TAP_, HUSCO, MYSORE
-s.a*0'1e;£<:'i~5.{} AS ,9; SECR ETARY,
* AC'C§'MMU--N}TY1= PARTY OF INDIA,
§§;Ts2.~Na,»;;P: CLGCK "§'OWER
C1':~2C£;,E, ASHOKA ROAD, MYSORE PETITIONERS
$33: 3'v?rH1LAK, ADV.)
f_ ' SM'? PADMA MURTHY wzo KRES}-Ilfiifis. MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT (3/0 H. RAMESH
NO.23Q,6'1'H MAIN, 4TH STAGE
31:45 mvow, Mvsomz RESPONDENT
r:0.3sT1,%:m;09 * V’ ‘%
HRRP 299,33/2009 8:;
MISC. CVL. No. 192/2909
~ 2 M
T}-HS HRRP FILED {US 115 CFC AGAINST THE é
AND ORDER DATED:26.09.i2008 PASSED IN I?RP,}\.’g£);’119/”2OC}é””* ‘
ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRZCT JUD.QE,’~–..M’i_S’ORE.
PARTLY ALLOWiNC: REVISION PE’1’ITiON:.,vF’1LED_–‘AG£%EI§3TS’T”THE
ORDER DATED: 26.10.2006 PASSED iN H’RC.N’CIh_58./’2~002VC3133THE 7
FILE OF THE V ADDLJ CIVIL JUDGE (JR,DN.),”MYS(L’RE;. ”
MiSC.CVL.192/2009 FILED :;r~3′::>Ei2 SF}C’i’1ON *1i1’;«:1;«:
CPC PRAYING TO STAY THE P1?.12A.:s; 01-? ‘:’I.~:i_E’ QRDER }Z3A”I’E-331)
25.09.2003 PASSED IN RR’? Nc:=.11o/23.96 an THE FILE 0? THE I
ADDITIQNAL DISTRICT JUEDGE, MYS.ORii?.__ :39 THE “INT:;R.z3ST OF’
JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 7 ” _ V
THIS ERR? AND MIsc.CVL.’ <§€::::§€:::\zc3.«:C;-1~i'*w.T%i£3';§ ADMI$SI<§}f€,
THIS DAY, THE caummamg ATHE'–FOl,L-QWING: 1- '
%§g§xn£3; *'
This iétnants is directed
against j3.11ig;fiii«21f21:::L'r;2t3."()9.2()(}8 passed by the
Revisienal 5 'of U36 I Additionai Dismrict
f.h.1dg6, 1 10/2006. By the impugned
.. me'}§ é.!;isionai Cour: has modified the order
vdate:-'.§.i X26. V1V.G.V§'{}§) €§VV'Vpassed by the trial court in HRC
N<3.V58/ xdirecting eviction of the p€§'.iti()1"1€%'S under
,1 S:,;¢'at§I§"«§?§E"{é)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the
f{éi1t }Act') and g'a;1ti11g few' months' time to them to
Afltérate and to hand over vacant possession of the petition
premises to the respondent/landiord.
//
HRH? No.38] 2009 &.
MISC.C1VL.Ne.192/2009
W: 3 W:
2. I have heard the iearned counsel appearing fer
petitieners and perused the impugned judgnent; 4′ ” ‘7’
3. The Revisional Court has Ijeversed’ ‘_’;vf1r:c1i’;;1g
recorded by the trial court on ;”§11e;’_’_’ 71:
rglationsixip beiween the
the decree passed in the Ified for
arrears 0f rent by the geld also by
referring tie the / 2002
flied by the performance
of an afleged 3 Hence, 1 find no iegaj
infirmity in h’1eVefir1€iir1RgV.’ree€igre1eci by the Revisienal Ceurt
rhat ii; landiorévvaed tenam: reiatienship between the
V 4. H ” –:I;;= 1″V.he case 01″ the respondent that she
‘zieeris the petition premises for her requirement, it is
;_reIeێfa:*1t.. to state that the resmndezzt in her evticierlee has
‘deposed that she aieng with her huebarld and
_4_i§}?}j}d;’e3.”1 were residing in a rented premises beiengéng te
‘V ene Sri.H.Ramesh and the said house is irlsuificient and
W”/@%
5
HRRP No.3812009 &
M}SC.CVL.No.192/f2{){»)9
– 4 »» ,. 2
hence they require the petifion premises for ti1ei.tf:”‘£;1s€é_’ _
occupation. The said evidence of thg respandéijt, $101″: ., ..
chailénged in the cross exa1:ui1}ation’»._ £r;”1}?;is ‘conféxi; if
relevant to refer to the f9Homrin–g;_ah$er§ati§3nS ¥:’§3eA
Revisional Court:
#13.
petitioner[~’Zt1};gi§adg:;_ in cieariy
deposed” her husband
.. :,:_ grail’ Vf e’$flici–i;r1g in £2 rented
pre§{21is.e:a’ One H Ramesh and
_ the Asqiti _ insufficient and
hence _ pefttton scheduie
é_ Vfof i’?zezr.use and occupation. _I;1__§_i3me
it is not at all denied by
tenants that the petitioner
” fémily members are residing in a
rented ‘ grammes and the
n ;re2s156f.§der1tS/tenants have net rebuffed the
= .p§3esumption and fed any evidence to sfzow
that the petitioner/Earzciladu has an aitemate
‘ aacommodation. Hence the observation of
the zriai Court that the petitioner/Zzzndiady
fcziied to produce She documents to Show that
‘W;/%
HRRP No.38/20059 3:5
MISC.CVL.No.}.92/12009
_ 5 _
she is residing in a rented premiseslf.s ‘ *’
._ V”
incorrect and iliegal……………… ” .
(Underlining supg:-{iiedj) ‘ 3 .; %
findings recorded by the Revisiéfia} there is
Eaxidlord and tenant re1atii1’:i(:I;, tile