IN THE HIGH CMJURT OF KARKATAKA AT BANGALORE
BATED THIS THE 79" DAY OF AUGUST. 2008
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.Amf '
H, R. R. P. HO,1@[@Q§..
C/W H. R. R. P. NO.130]"20£)§ ~
BETWEEN:
Sri. K. S. Kfishnamurthy, _
Ageé about 48 years, .
Son of Late K. N. Srinivasaiah,"u _
Shop N02 in the property 1
Bearing Old No.76, . if V
New No.18, Pipe line, V l .
Malteswaram, .
BANGALORE-560i'00:§;, A , I PETITIONER
"(COMMON IN BOTH PETITION)
{By A. S. Prakash, Advs.)
AND: . J
Sri. S. Vijaysmanda' Das ~ "
S..'Vija_v<~;é;1d;'a Rae, A' .
San bf late B. 'Sadémandaiah,
Aged abémtk 68 ymrs;%V 4!
Resi(ii3iE._at rzg';a_, " ' '
- 12th Cross-,.M6*5
V .V "~.'~"si'd Phasa£:5_.I. P. I':
'71_BAP{GALORE-550'078. ...RESPONDENT
(COMMON IN BQTH ?E’I’I’I’ION)
B. Sadashivappa &. S3331. Rajcshwaxti M., Advs.)
-HRRP 140.129/2003 is filed u/s.-45(1) of the Karnataka
‘Rc_:_x:§’-i Act, against the order dated 20.02.2008 passed in HRC
“‘VN0.417/2007 on the file of the XIV Add}. Small Clauses Judge,
Eiazxgalore, (SCCH-10), dismissing the application filed by the
petitioner hcmin U] s.42(€r)(b) 65 (0) cf the K.R.Act, 1999.
L’ Act. it is-%sos;;bn§it:¢dV»’:oot1iat, the petition filed by the landlord is
V V’v:’ ;:V1V1£Eer Seefionfii the Act.
filed an amclavit stating that, on the similar
landlord had already obtain possession of the other
.A;:3i*e1’fiises. He submits that, under Section. 31 of the Act, the
HRRP No.130/2098 is filed U/S.46(1) of the Karnataka
Rent Act, against the order dated 31.03.2008 passed on IA. in
HRC.No.417/2007 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of
Causes, Bangalore, dismissing the appfication filed U/s.42{f_S}{e)’
ofKR Act. ‘ »V
These revision petitions comm’ g on for admissioiz ‘
the Court made the foiiowingt 5 = .. «
9__13_~_D__§__R é A
H.R.R.P.No.1i29/08 is directed-.___agaiiisfV’the
20.2.2008 in!-{RC No.41′?/2007. ” M 1
2. Petitioner herein so under Section
42(6)(b)(c) of the Kamafaka RenEv.}&§;t, 19§9;”‘(11§£§:nafter referred
to as the ‘Act? Court below to
contest the efxiotioii to provision of
Section 31(lj{g) of
3. Sectio1A1V”4f.3:(tE)flS)’ Act requires permission of
the,’ case ” ‘fl:1e___’_1a:ndio1d is seeking eviction’ under
2-?”jV(12)(jfA)(hj–.oV1’~-V(;1) or under Sections 30, 31 or 37 of the
R 4.. counsel for the petitioner submits that. the
landlord is entitled for one residential and one non-residential
premises.
5. The leaxned Trial Judge instead of co13.si::l__¢-;i:’i;:1’g’VV’_~ A’
appkication within the scope of Section 4′.2(6)(b) 8:. — b
has gone into the question of rclationshiix of J
respondent as landlord and tena:1:1t_b_y app1§’ 111–g Sec,’ti’o1:’1 “3{e) V
the Act. In my view’. the approach of leazmédi is
totally misconceived, as there “is…;1o issoé to the
relationship of landloxfl and mat. .AAf§hs’_o1dcr passed
by the learned tn’a.1 igjazaggc»-.;g “iiof:_4s1:is*t aiu:?i:1c in iaw.
64 No.129/2008 is
disposed of. ;Fhc’– £5 dimctcd to consider the
afidavit filed pezmission to contest the
matter with the provisions of Section
Rent Act.
If_ izfiadc out by the petitioner, he may be
the matter.
V “‘Conseqi1;-;§1.1fly. the connected HRRP No.130/2008 aiso
iii:-rposcd of.
Sd/-.
Judgé
*APj ~