IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2og.5}
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD RAHM
HRRp.No.2o5g2{oo9"« ,_
BETWEEN:
SR1 RUGA RAM,S/O DEVARAMJI_,____
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,' " - '
M/S DURGA HARDWARE?» _ ; _
ELECTRICALS, SITUATED IN A POVRTIQ.N"jj.
OF TH E GROUN D_FE,OOR.~,"'O'F-- PRO PE,RTY; BEARING
NO.10(SHOP
MALLIKAR}UN~A~TE'[Y}_P'_LE STREET.,«-- 1;. A
11 CROSS, BVK _m.=_Nc3AAR« RiiOAD--A CROSS,
BANGALORE ' ' PETITIONER
(BY SRE1vl\v'iT.M.VASHO}§ATT'&._:S"R.T.-PARAMASHIVAIAH, ADVS)
AND:,,
V" SR1 .$*HA'N.KARflS"A',"' "
x\$1,-
A":_VS»/O~LA?E K-..MUNISWAMY SA,
BI N OE' DEA.D~ B'~.<_ LR's
(a) ' ».SMT.,L.E'ELA\/ATHI,w/O LATE KIVLSHANKAR SA,
"AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
Tb) VTESR1T<.S.OOv1NDA,S/O LATE KM SHANKAR SA,
= AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
_(c_)? SR1 K.S.ARASAPPA,S/O LATE K M SHANKAR SA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
A
T
T Q
2
1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT 3*" FLOOR
PROPERTY BEARING N0.10,
MALL1KARJuNA TEMPLE STREET,
2ND CROSS, BVK 1YENGAR ROAD
CROSS, BANGALORE -- 560 053
(Ci) SMT.GEETHA, W/O SR1 AMAR
D/O LATE SR1 K.M.SHANKAR SA, 44 YEARS'-
R/AT NO.104, 1 FLOOR, 3*" CROSS, A
TELECOM LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, ;
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, ' ' «L "
BANGALORE -- 560 023
(e) SMTRRABHA, W/O SR1 MARuTH1," _
D/O LATE SR1 1<.M.SHANKAR_'SA, 41
R/AT HURIOPET, 339 CROSS,'-.
BVK 1YENGAR ROAD-.CROSS, --«
BANGALORE -- 550023 ' A
YEARS
(1) SMT. PUSH RA, VJ/O"'S1R1 , A
D/O LAT_F,._.S_R'I,K;IV1.;;SHA_N'KAR "'3A_, 34 YEARS
R/AT No.2, 25?. ;=LO"OR,_ 25?' CROSS,
OTC RG.AD--., K.+<';LA~NEY '
BANGALORE -- 56v0»0a53---.__'_O"-»..,
(g) SMT.R,.AJALAi<S_HI'='!.I,'W/E) SR1 NANTHA,
0/OLATE SR1 KMSHANKAR SA, 32 YEARS
R/AT N CROSS,""'B' STREET,
.k:jE«MRARu.RA,AGRAHARA,
,,,B'ANGA._LfO,RE "--._5_00 023
~. RESPONDENTS
(BY””SR1″‘7R.LsISAOASIVARRA 31 SR1 G.B.NANO1SH
“SL3-QWDA AO\)’s,,,1~1=OR 1Mr>LEA01NG R1–7)
0 ‘ T:41S”.–‘HRRR FILED U/S 46 OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT,
‘*’:~A,GA1N’ST THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED:13.8.2DO9
‘1RASvLS.E.O 1N H.R.C 169/2007 ON THE r=1LE OF THE CHIEF
1u’1>GE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE,
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.27(2) (r) OF
KARNATAKA RENT ACT.
THIS HRRP COMING ON FOR FURTHER
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:_.””—-
1. Tenant’s petition agai’n,st1’_’_’ti’ie ‘”or’de–r
13.08.2069 on the fiie of Pri’nci”p.a_i Jucige,
Causes, Bangalore in H.R.C.No,.,1.E§V9/.2OQ,A7 d.irect.i_ng_.eviction
of the petitioner under u’SeTctio’n__v2.7iv(2′)'(r}..,AVof the Karnataka
Rent Act, 1999 Udereinaiitwer’ Act’).
2. after notice
respondents}, = ‘
3. , H.eardfl.”” Petition is taken up for final disposai by
consent. I I
éif’-rsri;7:g..iingTthat the plea of the iandlord is not
genuine’-or”bon’a_fl’d.e.»’ ei~3E’;=:4was inducted into the premises
more than iflllyvears ago, initially on a monthly rent of
-from 16.01.1993. He is Carrying on business in
._t’hE,nvam_e._ari;d”‘.sty|e of M/s. Durga Hardware and Electrical.
The has been increasing rent periodically and thus
‘ “his intention is to extract higher rent besides he averred
the premises has several shops and one tenant had
“ix/acated shop in his occupation. The landlord had an
..~J’\”‘€//
xi
had abated upon death of Sri. i<.M.Shankar Sa. The
petition is not iegaily tenable. The second ground iudrgged is
that the petitioner did not tender his _.__ljui:
examined his son. The fact that there w_ere_"_:seve.rai._ shops,
in the same building was not,:odis_pguted._.g o
landlord had to explain asi:0_4_whyo'h_e'has opetj'itione'rfl
herein for eviction.
9. Per conl:ra,o;thef§orespo.oiide’nt’s counsel has
supported the_irn_pug.n’ed’ V
reference’ to ‘pr’oc:ee,d4i”il1g’s*-.before the trial Court. As urged
by Sri. lVi.,__Mi..Ash’o_l{a.,.. i’e:arn4ed counsei for the petitioner, Sri.
K,,..l_?l.oSr1.ankar”S.aL_die:d on 25.07.2009 and the impugned
rAis–.:p’assed on 13.08.2009. In this regard, the
._:¢’o.ntentoi”o»n ii-‘l.M.Ashol<a, learned counsel is that the
case v'i?:as"poosted on 16.07.2009 for hearing and then calied
"on_01o.'o08.2009, on which date the arguments were heard
the case was posted on 13.08.2010 for orders. Thus,
"the proceedings were continuing till 01.08.2009. Since,
.-*'\
I
"W
K.M.Shankar Sa died on 25.07.2009 during pendency of
the proceedings, abatement operates.
11. Records are summoned. On p4’erusa:i”:h..’0’f
records, it is seen that the argiiments t’iie,j’Sid»esu’;
were heard on 23.05.2009 itseir a:n.,Ad'”vthen
calied on 01.07.2009 for iu;the,r arguments. 0,rr~tha:t day,
the case was again_adjourned”V–to”–».02.07′.’20.0S3.,’§ on which
date the learned trialiijuidge”hVae:sA}re.cord.eod as foliows:
“i~i_ea.rd cotghsei for the
petiti,0_ner,faif3d.. aiso. _for_’.t-he, “respondent. Orders
on id.07.120009».if”5)’i,i; ,j * ”
‘From this”n’0te,’..i_:ti”‘i»s.-evident that the hearing in this
casewasconciud-ed”v.as”‘on 02.07.2009 itself. The death of
i<,M.Shani<0a'r""'S'aV, is subsequent to conclusion of the
"'pr0'ce:edVi r.;is,._, " '_.
However, Sri. M.M.Asho¥<a, wouid submit that
0' *ars.__the'' case was posted to 16.07.2009 to hear again on
'z01;*08.2009, on which date, the trial Judge has recorded
"that he has heard the parties petition has to abate. Sri.
Ix
if
,6} ,
case on 01.08.2009 for Orders, the same will not give
leverage to contend that hearing was not concluded"—so far
as K.M.Shanl<ar Sa is concerned. His knowiedgeép'
conciusion of hearing has to be imputed
itself. In this view of the mattergltlhlel'ground:u.r,g'e-du the
impugned order has been gppasseéd after death"
petitioner and hence the'.._c,,p¢ro.ceediri–g_s"-abat'ed,m is not
acceptable. His grou.n"d..,_i&s threrlefore over-ruled'.
13. Now, comiing tofij;m’eriitg,»’i.,,it is seen that
K.M.Shankar did=”‘rio-tfgte’nide_r’ .ihis:'”i’evidence but has
exam__ine_d* ‘ his son as P.W.1. It is
K.S.Ara’s-appav,wh’o.se benefit he had sought for
evificltliorn. The’refore, l:(.S.Arasappa’ s evidence would be for
:h.imseAifA,_as-a_lso, as an attorney of K.M.Shankar Sa. On
~.b’oth vthe”_veg_ro;u’nds, his evidence deserves clue credence and
had appreciated keeping in mind ail attending
“circum”stances. The circumstances pleaded are that the
‘7:bu’iidir1g comprises severai shops, in one of the shops
“lK,S.Arasappa is associated with his eider brother
:1 X
the scale on the hardship, it is to be held in favour of the
tenant. Being of this view, the tenant would be venthiltrlied to
reasonable time.
16. Therefore, while confi.rrnin’ucJ.VwVVt’h*eI,r ‘o’:’d’_e,r ‘ ;
eviction, tenant is given eighteen _tirn_e
and deliver vacant possessi.ori~~..of the schedu_le”‘..p’re~n’i’ises to
the respondents, whoare b,rorrght”‘o.n record…asv’§iega| heirs
of Sri K.M.Shankar”Sa, ,i.’:%to,:%”»p,ayment of rent
reguiariy as whe’n”‘iti:3cc’rru};.5_ dtJE;’1.!VV’Il’i case if there is
default forj.’V_co_ri»secutive period of two
monitvhs,theforde’§rV”v’iri’:l”i’»stand revoked and there shail be no
impedarhents -forvuvthel’respondent to execute the order.
‘ ii_;VVit~h,, thesevobsvervations, the petition is disposed of.
sd/3
Judfl