High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri D Srinivas vs Sri M Munivenkatappa on 28 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri D Srinivas vs Sri M Munivenkatappa on 28 March, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF  AT 

DATED THIS THE 23». DAY OF MARCH  j  % 

I-_!I-I2b'()RE

up-op.'--' 1- u-\_ at 1'rI1"I.fl\'l

BETWEEN :

1. 8ri.l'.'.-.'£rinivas,  ~  ' _ 1, ;   
S/u.Late 8ri.Devarao. " .  2   
Aged about 52  --  "  1  1
12,Ie¢.        L 
Jounm]ist"C_dl931Y§'      .

Bar1gum*-"sir:  5:60  A    

3- 3fiéD-Afififiéflfifip   . '
g;g;1_a;a_z    %
Aecd'ab6ut39  
Riat. Tia, 13. 3"_'- 
Jiiurnalist'-Colony,'
ffianlgalqre -- 

     A(B«y"31iQ:i{.--P.Aaok11mar,Adv.)

'. S1*i.M:.h.£u:':1'.-e::Lsatapp-.;,

w W H  * r Sindc deccascd by his L.Ra.

   Sint.M.Khantn.
 V'  Major, Widowof

Late }v{.Mu1".i'u'e:1'.r.ta1'.-,3.-%.,

x (b) Srl.M.Umesh, Major,

3,! g.L.g;tc M.Mmm 

. uu'.'a'uL;E  jgI."GU?yK¥AL..   f

"B R
H.R.R.P. No.34/2oos%    



i:,i1e petifioner  a pen rot' twin years nufii F--

[c) Sri.M.Vcnkatcsh,
iviajor, son of

Late M.M 

All e.*.'th.w. rcskiir-.g at ..e.4-8,
C.JA/cnkateshdas Road,   .
ififii Cross, iiih iviain, 
Padmanabhanagar,
Bangalore -- 560 070.

(By Sri.K.8hivaji Rao ai' 
§fi.R1'3hasir:e1j, Axivsii j ' 1 i" " -- . ._

.his    46%;) 91'

'run! --l\VGC I It

Karnataka Rcntfict  thevi;n;he1'jdahad 06.03.2008
passed in mccL;ficI1..iiEo.'233j3G1'Ji's airtime iii: of the xiii
Additionai Small"  Bangalore, SCCI-I-13,
orde1i11_g_Vto"V.i§1s:i¢:, ,, vdeiim-:1'y-- wa_1_'_ran;t against the J udgment
flcbtars ivhcirxin "i'3i.".1 "re;s;..=e;<:t""".-if Excauflen whwulc

Tilis: on for admission, this day,
the nmiic the follbwing:

ORDER

proceedings were terminated in
mg537/2006 in this Court. Pursuant to order

~ 6.3.39. 29*” 1’~!ovc..m.br:r 2006, t_h_is Coup: gm:_._d $11.43 1:1.)

..__._!__I 1.’… vi

mHDeccmber 2006. One of the conditions was that 11′ the

petitioner commits default in payment of agreed rent for 19

,fl./.

an 1-unsung III-Jung -run;-U-5′-I-Inn I’Ml III 1 -$333:-Q14. C-A O’!

r:

I

«:-

LI

respondent to execute the eviction order. in

the respondent, the petitioner dethulted

rents for three consecutive months; t T

__,_…_____

proceedings were its

3. me ceae~tsa<.:–.vm;;r–u-A -.~..-.
the fact that the * [1 one of
the conditions in the c_!.elivery wan-ant.

The said qusataceeamiustpeumm.
for that the rents were sent by
poet " on the gran .c_l I'.-n.

s He aiso submits "t 11*'

* money order and it has been refused.
that there is no violation of the

imposed by this Court.

3. Mr. Kfshivaji Rae, learned counsel appearing

for the respondents submits and makes grievance that

H-van’ Inuf 10 tumor:

uuua unut. .l.v

go; 3 &
IUUD LIVW UIIIJI , IIIJCZILJ I’VE-D LX313? I-I19 I

1:41-

further submits that he has wanttmly
conditions imposed by this Court. Hence,

can be shown. He submits no

.I-.__…….d.I_. L]… ..__I_.. …._……….._

hp uuy, l.l.1 luy ;. ff)
issue delivery wannnt4′”is_n_’th&t have not

paid the rents Indeed it

is to be order coupon would

–.– -‘-

“z;a_z2i:’;yws:;”se.nt;”””B3If H Ia not
o —r-no is at iiiiit neeu” ‘ not be gone
into ‘at this stage, inasmuch as the

sum of Rs.l,200/- as rent for

ooverlng up to 300’ Nownnber 2008.

K.shivaji Rao, counsel appearing
K ‘V ‘ for is apprehensive that the cheque

— ;n.s.y”no.. he hmomed. by the .-.-=m…m.

6. Havitlgmgmdtothcthctflmtrentssxepaidup

4′” 3u.11.2u

IA}

H I’ own nl” fl-in Irinnr ‘I-I-nut H-1n knsvuuanna-I nwlnmo ..
vu, 1 nu: in 1.119 vnuw unit. um nuyualulvu wumfi
4.1″‘

‘V I

.. -J’

.5.

_ __ .1 I..- n\………. .4′.

pasacu say we msuuating %u.u.$ kble ‘wk

aet=aa1:’.e

and accordingly, it is set-aside.
Petition stands allowed.

7. All pending appucauona
consideration. Hence, the L.

R.

C
Q
*9
CD