Sri C V Mahadevaiah S/O Late … vs H S Sakshayani W/O Late B. … on 24 April, 2009

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRV'_E"'_:'A..,_

DATED THIS THE 24*!» DAY OF' APRIL  A ;;--i if .»_. 

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUsrIcii_A $..BxGPuA;~ii~:A----. 4'   

REGULAR sscorm APAEAL :10A,V_235/   2  R

BETWEEN :

C V MAHADEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

PARTNER _   ~
s/0 LATE VEERABHADWAE... _  '

M/S HOTEL NAN-.}U--!*§I}--¥ESHZWARA'..:
8.1-I ROAD, TUMKIJl'{;)'A»A' _ . I 1 

   " vA....fApPELLAI~rr

(BY Sri:  M  _ .

AND :

1

H. s DA1€s1«1_A*zA1§1  V '
' ', ..faGa::':: Agoufrfs YEARS
- _w ;p_LA:_1fE 3 NArA3u"NnAPPA

 AGEI3..ABOi.IT' 53 YEARS
; "W/OPA'RALMESHWARAPPA
D/O-LATER NANJUNDAPPA

N "SHEVAKUMAR
- AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

' "4310 LATE B NANJUNBAPPA

N GEETHA

AGED MBOUT 56 YEARS
W'/O NAGARAJU

1)/0 LATE 3 NAN.m1~:mPPA

J

'*1



 ' 1E)L

N BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S] O LATE 8 NANJUNDAPPA

M] S HOTEL NANJUNDESWARA
B H ROAD, TUMKUR

A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FEM' ~

REEPT. BY ITS PARTNERS

NAGARAJU S/O msavamuu
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS * _V
ELECTRICIAN, AMMASANDRAL» "
DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI "
'TURUVEKERE TALUK...

G s SOMASHEKHAR " 7
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS" ._
s/0 SHEKHARAPPA   -- 
R/O sumnmizauu -_ 1 .,
cs: mvoxir, 'E'_Jl\qiK1J}?.' 

T. ii.    * -
SINCE DEcEzgsB:__I:.x_Bar._Li2g 

NIRMAIJ-'.. §EVARA u'--v S  
MAJOR ~  '

,_f isz /Q L.Afr3 '1'?-x «DEVARAJ
" ~ _Ma.aAVE Ié:R _
 MAJQR"'  

ts/0' L1_¥£'__E"§"'N DEVARAJ

""'13'1'i~I Aés RESIDENTS 012'

BI~iEEM:ASAMUI)i¥A
KASJRBA HOBLI

' '*-r1fuM;<vI~2TALuK

 "33 K ANAND @ BALAJI

MAJOR
s/0 KANNAIAH
saovm' AS PRGPRIETOR

J



in RA No.86/O8. The Lower Appellate Court by its judment

dated 5.2.2009 has amrmed the fin1:1i1:3.gs of the 

and has dismissed the appeal. The defendants f 

befoze this Court assafling the concmzent_.fi;¥dinge::'~   

judgments of the Courts below.

2. Heard the learned  the 

the teamed senior counseigppea fin" 'gift:-rufltlcixe 

3.    '   the arguments
on the   since this Court was of the

View that betht the ~.-tielow had properly appreciated

 - the  and  at a finding of fact with regard

   as contained in the lease deed dated

3.4..i933'V(E3;.:9g"1)',' the validity of the quit notice and also

{with {agate ix} the mesne profits, it was indicated to the

 V'  oeunsel for the appefiant that the appeal is Imbfie to

 At this stage, the learned counsel for the

" sought time to take instructions as to whether the

$

'5



 

appellant herein would undertake not to p:*ess_ §1:1e,Vv "  

further, if suflicient time is   e 

premises.

4. Pursuant theretg the'  haa§e'V"'dieeussed
amongst themselves and "i'1é,'ye  Court today
that the appcliaxgté   raised in this
appeal  Being granted two
years time_  premises. The tzial
Court ..d.~.fiI1agc:3 at Rs.25,000/- per
month. Hewever  is inclined to accept the

sub111isjsiz*;z1A.pu'c.V1t;:it_I1k §n lékehalf of the appellant that a period

'V vdi-mévd  vacate, noticing that a long period

 time  Dgrantecl, the financial interest: of the

' V'   resp§)1.au§%ientVa.I'§;e_--ie to be protected to certain extent. 111 that

 the flappeflant has voiunteered to pay a sum of

  per month during the said period of two years if

  by this Court. The said submissions are accepted.

J



 

payment of the said amount even for one month}thciobefiefit-"'..'t

of time granted by this Court vvould:'iiot"ez:I;_112'e to 

of the appellant and the mspondeohf   ''

execute the decree itnmediate1»3z"'--.:_oi:_»det'ou1tf' =.'I'I_':&_c
herein shall also file an   a
period of four weeks    of a copy of this
order undcxtaldng '    _  «V:...v}:to1'1dover vacant
possession of  and also
finther   sublet, underlet or
cause   the's<:hedule pzemises during the

said penadfor  ted by this Court to the

appeflant to vaoate_Vth'e  premises.

    '.'   aspect of the matter which has been

bmught  of this Court is that there is a proposal

  the Notional Highway Authorities to widen the mad and if

   proceedings, if the demolition of the building takes

  due to the action  by the highway authorities,

V   the same shall not be construed as an interference made by

J

'-v



 

the respondents hexein being contraxy the  '

to this Court to provide the appe3_1an1_:_ étwcg’ . V
vacate the premises. It is
time of the appellant tzizge pfezeises, be
entitled to remove the fixtures ae’ of the
said lease deed and the – TB in
deposit would be at the time of
In ‘ stands disposed of.

No oxtiefas iii _”

Sci/~
Iudgé

AkC!._bfiiS . ‘ ” .. ..