High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Ramanath S/O Late Sri. Nagappa vs Dr N Basavaraj Reddy S/O Late H. … on 10 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramanath S/O Late Sri. Nagappa vs Dr N Basavaraj Reddy S/O Late H. … on 10 February, 2009
Author: H.G.Ramesh
H RN03 3 12008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARKATAKA AT BAKGALORE

DATED 11113 mm 101%! my on' FEBRUARY 

BEFORE Q
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE 1515; 'j  
H.R.R.1;.__:_N0.293/2:~:N38 :  }  A' %%
BETWEEH: 4' 

SR1 RAMANATH
S/O LATE Sm NAGAFPA

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS .  

R'fA'I' No.33, GROUND FLOOR  _ ;

HU'I*c:i-m:s ROAD E.'X'FENSION ._ '

COOKETOWN V      
BAN(3~ALORE~E5=5O 083; '  3  _  -  PETITIONER

{BY 3121 3 S E-s,a\éfr:;..,_12§:, Ai}YCvf.}AT.E} . 

ARE:

1' Dr l';E.BA_SAVAR'Aq §e.E:;:34m'-._ .
S/O 'i..AT'E H.NA22AYAi\',ASWAMY REDDY
AGEDABOUT' 5.2 Y'--El2 RS,  "
R/AT No.29, .:.1eo1~eG' 
BHIJRHANUDDEN THELMI 10
T£,i..MAI\€ TUN, Dr,ISMA§L
~  _  LAMPUR, 1N&'i£LAYSIA
' «.REPRI3SF_N'?ED BY I-{IS GPA HOLDER'
 PVirs.S£iAS'HixK£*..LA REDDY
 w/Q»m-«;N.BAsAvARA.; REDDY
'- AR}/~A'I' m:~.;';34,T:=Hu*rcH1Ns ROAD
exTE1s:sIo;:;, cooxs TOWN
BANC£ALORE3~56O 034

_, .,    - BASAVARAJ NArmi'mA REDDY

' , DZ?) 1}!' NBASAVARAJ fiEI:)f)Y
 _ AGED ABOUT 36 YEAR?»
g R/AT N029, LORONG
 B}-IURHANUDDIN HELMI 10
TAMAN TUN, QLISMAIL
KAULA LAMPUR, MALAYSIA



fiRRP.NO."_2_93,f 2008

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
Mrs'SI~iASI-HKALA REDDY

W/O Dr.N.BASAVARAJ REBDY

R/AT N084, HUTCHINS ROAD
EXTENSION, COOKE TOWN

BANGALORE-560 O84  RssPg>.;-Lioskfis  *' 

(BY sm M s NARAYAN. ADVOCATE, FOR _ ~ ~
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HC}--LDE¥?§ 

THIS HRRP 521,513 1313 46(1) oi: 'r3+:E*~'TVKEé'~.AA<:'14' 

AGAINST THE ORDER D1'. 18.10.08 PASSED [N Hscxixiogs/as
ON THE F'iLE 012* THE xx AooL.",;t-mos, rmzmam MAST;-,?--;
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, 'AL.Low:NC; THE
PETITION FILED U/S 27('L')(r) R/W SEC 3.1(1}(b)" or? KREACT,
1999   _ ._   

THES PE'rmoN c0MI;§ic; orJ"Ef§j1éjAoba::ss:oN THES DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FoL1,Qw11s:c-:__ V'   = ., 

This   tefiant is directed
against  Oréisr   passed by the:
Court of flag  Court of Small Causes,

Bangalore:  tiis'  order, the trial Court has

 eiiiotioné filed by the resmndents in

I1J'VI;i~??.(:V3w..-;I'§io.v::V3}':9,(vv?'2;V€V}f'§),8:?~under Section 27(2)(r) read with

Z  Section 31v(1)f§') of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

H H 'T .. ,S;§'a.I»iaveri, learned Counsel appearing for the

'_'_pg;éti.fio11'er/tenant submits that the revision petition

:'.4:i1ay: be disposed of by ganting time to the



 A Siti" ]Sgii}S.Narayan, learned Counsel appearing for
  - Respondent/landlord fairly submits that the

’11’ respondents have no objection for granting of time as

” sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner and

HRRP.NO.293.{ 2008

petitioner/tenant til} the end of December 2010g’Tt’o.
voluntarily vacate and to deliver vacant ”
the petition premises to the 3 1 V
No.2. He further submits that
December 2010, the petitionexjj wolné
lumpsum amount of Rs. ft rent

which is calcuiated advance

amount paid by the amount
of Rs.5O,OO0/H4: ipatdtjtttefittféasgfiondent No. 1-
Dr.N.Basaj(a;’aj_V of December
2009 3 demand draft cirawn in
his favonc. no circumstance the
V V1.3etit;io1f§:€ei* zwonltii A. riftnfher extension of time to
4:%;)etition premises. His aforesaid

su’b:aiissio:1s”_vare;..biased on record.

the Revision. petition” may M disposed of in ter1I_;_s

suggested by him.

In View of the above, I make the foHowi11g.Afe}’C§e§fi’.Q”‘ A

(a)

the petitioner/tenant is granted
end of December 2010 to v<)imf1ta*n"_1y ix]

and to deliver vaeapt ;5o§Sessior1'u'e-
petition premisesV. the
respondent 1v\¥-0:2 s11bjeet– eteo..eon<a:Iitien7:that
the petitioner" by
way of an six
weeks' today 1:) that he
deliver vacant

_eih_e pefifien premises to the

ieuzdelofdgl-'No. 2 before the end of
'Deeemmr'-320 that he would pay Rs.
. V 50;'i3'Q{3/ .-V '.te€&fafds rent to respondent No.1-

__:DrV,N.Bé5a1tara:j Reddy before the end of

2009, through a crossed Bank

draft drawn in his favour; (iii) that

_.;§1eewe1fld not induct any third parties into

~~ the petition premises;

if the petitioner fails to file the unciertakring
in the aforesaid terms within the time
stipulated or commits breach of the

HRRP. N0.f293£ 2008

undertaking given, it shall be deemed that
no time had been granted by this Court
vacate the petition premises and
event, respondent No.2/landlord T
liberty to execute the c»’r6″er’
trial Court in HRC N(:;;4?29}?_’2():08′:Vvflliehu
impugned herein; :

(0) subject to the above;-t:1)e.._»Qrde:-«–
herein shall A H

The revision_..=p_en’tia1’1′-stand.s:»s._dis}9c§.$é:&’. of in the

above t:em:1s.__