High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri G Harish vs Sri P V Sridhar Kumar on 24 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri G Harish vs Sri P V Sridhar Kumar on 24 October, 2008
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
HRR?.No.Z£'E9.2QO8

.. Z ....
EN THE HIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

oF
DATEB THIS THIE2 24'1"" DAYJJCTOBER, 2008

BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MRS.JUS}'ICE B.v.NAGARA*:'H'Ié}§-,J:.

H.R.R.P.NO.219l2008

BETWEEN:

SR} G HARISH _ %
S10. KESHAVA 1=>RAmU.,
AGED 33 YEARS   
VEGETABLE SHOPS &%_PR*a,_Bau

ELECTRONIC 33:; :'s1;,Ecé:rR:c;A:;'.3',L'-MUNICIPAL NO.
2'7, (OLD N0.20)J~MA§.N :gc>AD,;'zs'r--.,cRoss
SARASWATHIPURAT.-M AGE: Ls,3fc>.t.;;fr,'1'11BANGALoRE

_ _ H _ ...PETI'I'IC)NER
(By S;"1'*£:uI<.'; JA3';§P:§Ai%:As:H, ADV.)

 *

M :-3 t<~1.P«–xz SRIDHAR KUMAR

V _ '=3/'o'.'~ 1;; :3 VIJAYA KUMAR
VV'A"§_'~.N0, 27 (OLD NO. :20) 1 MAIN

ROAi::.»,' £31" moss
% …sAI2AsWA'rH1PUmM, A G 13 LAYOUT
~. BANGALORE — 566096.

RESPONDENT

(By Sn’: SWARNAKAMAL ASSGCIATES FOR C; R)

THIS HRRP FILEBLI/S 46 GP KARNATAKA RENT AC1′
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2008 PASSED IN
HRC.NO.141/2(){)’Z cm THE FILE op THE CHIEF JUDGE,
COURT 012′ SMALL cmsrzs, EANGALQRE, ALLOWING THE
PETFFIONER FILED UIS i?.T(2§(It} AND E3ISMiSSiN€3 THE

HRRP.NO.219.2GO8
_. 2 _.

PETITION FILED U/S 2?'(2)(b)(ii) OF K.R.ACI’ SEEKING FOR
EVICTION.

This HRH? coming on for ORDERS on this-§’a»y;–Vvthe
court delivered the followingr ‘ e . A’ ..

This revision petition is ”

aggieved by the older passed No.TV.3’_4

18.6.2008 on the file of the -3udg’e.Vo’f Csuses af
Bangalore under whieh~..fche Sfiras directed to
vaeate the petition allowing the

petition Rent Act,

199és.._wh11e pefifion under Section 27(2)(b)(ij)

oft11eAt:t,_ ” _ H A V’

2. V. _ When _ revision petition Came up for admission

611′ ‘both sides tmk time to find. out as to

V {hefe–..was any scope for settiement between the

‘dsi1:ies; have Iepatted settlement by filing a joint

me1::.ro.”;.The joint memo is taken on record. The same is

” signed by the pefitisner and the respondent as well as by the

vfrespective counsel. Both the pefitioner and the respondent

axe present in court. They are identified by their mspecirivc

counsel and they admit their signatures on the –1’o%;1t memo.

fly.

§i3′<':.RP.No.219.2008

.. 3 ._
In terms of the joint memo the pefifioner has undertaken to
quit and hand over vacant possession of the schedule
premises to the respondent on or before :24. 10.2099

to other terms and conditions stated in the _§oi11jt:me1:auo..:"' is

u

3. The terms aged eomiiiions of the _.3eiT,1’i:<,ni1e:mo ..

extracted as follows:

“The petitioner/ ieriimi prefe-n”ed””£he”‘
above petition aga2ns’ orcieéo in
HRC,No.141/2007 by the _Chief Judge of Small
Causes, Barlgaloregiated 18:5 2098.

._ ‘ Yfleefirefifiofieffizfther submits that he shall

vacate __o’::er the vacani possession of

the esd’redizIe’Vp1eniise$ to the respondent on or

_ befofe 24..1§-3.20092” The respondent has agreed
_§ ‘jar the eame witiwutfimher extension,

, petitioner has agreed to pay rent of
_ “R$L200{};’–j~ per month during the period of one
. ‘ye”t;;g’_fi*-gift’ today instead of Rs. 1 800/ -pm”

-. »”The respondent has agreed to return the
~. Se;-curiiy/advance amount of 1323.40, 006/ – to the
_ petiiioner after deducting arrears if any at the
” time of hanfiing over the vacant possession of the
” premises.’

” In View of the above, ofice is direcied to draw up a

éeoxee in terms of the joim memo. The petitioner shall file

an afidavit of undertaldng incorporating the terms of the

joint memo withie a period of four weeks from toeiay. The

fig,