IN THE HIGH COURT or KARRATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 251% DAY or AUGUS?
BEFORE ' V A
THE HoN*BLE am. JU:3TICf2«VA:;$5PACI£%£§1APUI§i3
WRIT PETITION N0.214i? o1=?"20(§9
BETWEEN: .
SI*i.G.Parthasarathi, _ ._ 1
8/0 Sr§,.CroviI1cia:"ajan Muda1iVar;j "
Aged about 44 Years, - =
Resifiing at N0.§%,"'«.__ _'-- 3;
"Ganga Nilayam, _'1'«[ga>i_3:1;-Roz§,{i,ij&*. V
Vasantfmagar, .
BANGAI_M.HQRE1w56€!::VQ 52}" V ' .. PETITIONER.
(By; M/_ ?__i€:xu:3, 2a;1»'s.;
sm:.R.shafit;:g; ' _
W/0 lam: Ram.ac'ha_I1dra Rat),
.....
” N(}’.23, ‘”Ga11ga fliiayaztn,”
1§t moor, * Side,
10-th Mai:1.Rr}ad.;’ -Xfasanthnagar,
BANGikLOREj’;-.’360 052. .. RESPONDENT.
(333-‘ SVrii.§{§.C3.Shivaram11, Adv.)
~k__ 17r_*k_’irW’ir_wir”_i:_’ir
V. Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
—ii§%”1.S.No.1162/2007, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing on
Interkacutory Afjphlcation this day, the Court made the
foilowingz
O R I) E R
The petitioner instituted O.S.N o. 1 162 / 209?’-l the
respondent herein seeking possession of the..s_i_ntv premises .on'<.__
the ground that he is the 1anc11ordt an§1tle;é2;~e.sp¢nee;j£
tenant of the suit premises one'a.4__monthly rent» L.
2. {)u3r’ing the pendVenzey snit, .til1e”‘pet:itioner filed
I.A.No.6 under Section of Civii i?’roced”L2re
read with Seotior;-iléfii of Act and to direct
the responde:’ntllto of rent from the
months to’ ifieeember, 2008, at the rate of
Rs.2,400/ “t.o”‘_;Rs.88,800/n and damages at the
_.._rate of§gRs:«inonti1 for 23 months from February,
to 2008 amounting to Rs.69,()OO/— and also
the etc. The said application was contested by
the respendent on the grotmd that there is no jura}
reléitionship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is
it ‘these circumstances the ‘Frial Court after hearing both
ll” counsel for the parties, rejected the appiication and
aggieved by the said order, the present petition has been
V,
filed.
monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/~ w.e.f. 22.03.1995. At of
occupying the premises, the defendant had _ of
Rs.35,000/~ as advance to the said _
So to the extent that the defendaI:itiité?ias a
tenant by the father of the in of
the Written Statement.
6. Anyhow on _ it Statement it is
pieaded that subsequeiitlsi iinortgage transaction
between the was came to be
filed, evidenee of the Mortgage Deed
was reseondent herein has produced
copies = -:.::a:;g:’eements aiong with the Memo
dated of the documents reveals that
‘thereiiiizas-s~.mertga§eVagreement between the parties for a sum
f%i:s’_.2,. Learned eounsei for the petitioner submits
that tiiese_ dotjuinents are not registered documents and they
have notdproperly Vaiued and he requests to impound these
“ioetitnents under the provisions of Karnataka Stamp Act.
Anyhow, as could be seen from the rival contentions
VA by the parties, though the induction of the respondent
as tenant is admitted, later it is stated that there is a
mortgage transaction and thereby she denied the jnral
Kw
relationship. So when the relationship is (3631i(:’d=,WuiS no
question of giving direction to payment of
it is a matter which will have to ‘be ,_decided”
recording evidence. In such ci1’cui:astja”i1cesi;.I’do ”
error in the order passed ‘~ti1e ‘tiie
appiication of the petitioner. the is devoid of
merits, it is dismissed acccrdié:1gg3:’,’ ” ‘
So far along with the
Memo under the provisions
of Section Act, the examination
and is delegated by this Court to the
Court below’ ” for’ .considcrafion, which shaii take into
Vconsideiefion tfie’ of the Karnataka Stamp Act and
3.ta,i(cAapprop1’i:eite action, in accordance with law.
to send those two documents to the
View of this order, Mise.w.No.s024/20:0 does not
it ‘surzéive for consideration and hence it is rejected.
Sd/ii
IEd<§5
AGV.