1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF DECEMBER 2009
BEFORE
THE I»-EON'BLE MR.}US'E'ICE S. N.sATYANARAYA§\;;x~-~ I A'
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 231 OF 20.09 ' O.
B ETWEEN:
1. TR. SATHYANARAYANA,
S/O. T.K. RAMAIAH SETIY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
2. SMT. TEJA SATHISH, .__ 5
W/(). T.R. SATHYANARAYANAQ « ., -
AGEDABOUT SYYEARS, i
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS 'OF sErrTr:z;'s'mE§«:T, 4' " ~ "
CHICKMAGALUR Tozwm _ 1: V:
., 1 _V pI5T1';.IONERs
(BY SR1: RAm:1i§Dm1§RAs,A;D~.&--.ASs0., ADVs.]
AND: O O 3 V.
DR. S.Y. SATHISH, " __
S;°O.«..S.L.v.'Y£'1LL.A1€NA SE': *
AG1,:D'AB_OUT'4g8
SHRUSHRLT'}f'l+ZA'CLI1$I[C,
lVIAHII';A BUILDING,
" SAKTHI MEDICALS,
Q_"v{:3x9.sRx;.V';1). RAVIRAJ, ADV}
V BASAVANE\HA§;;Li;. 4-
_ =~C:_I--§1C_I{1\/LAGALU.R.
' " - ' RESPONDENT
""\
2
CRP FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED:30.'?.2009, PASSED IN S.C.NO. 96/2006, ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDL. CEVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN), CHICKMAGALUR, PARTLY
DECREELNG THE SUIT FOR SEEKING OF MONEY.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETETZON COMING ON _.FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:,__
ORDER
Heard the counsel for the petitioners.
2. This is Landlord’s revision tiieil 0
of the Decree dated 30.7.2009 passed
The petitioners herein are it;
which was filed by the resgefxaexrg refund of
sum of Rs.6,020/~« being paid by the
respondent riereirr “while taking on lease the
premises, whiclriiis ” agt..’i’Market Road, Chikkamagalur
beazirlg t&s’ses_sment N0.62()4 / 1808/ 2 hereinafter
referred” to as.1eassed’preII1ises.
3. A leading to this Revision Petition are that
C it “the-re’sp0nde11t:’ herein had taken the aforesaid premises on a
of Rs.660/«~ from the petitioners herein in June
M
1997. Subsequently, on 31.7.1999 the tenancy was
terminated and suit in O.S.No. 322/99 was flied
petitioners against the respondent which .
dismissed in View of the provisions of Section 9″
Control Act coming into force. Subseq1i’en_t7}y,” ‘evicttionii
in HRC No.11/2002 was fied. rm;-iing the,_pendene_y”‘~of”the = ”
said eviction petition, the respondent ihereirii’ va.eated the
property in August 2005 possession
of the same to petition ers.
4. Thereaftel} differences between the
parties herein a_ appointed to ascertain the
condition of thereafter the key of the
pren1isesp,.f§§rase. the court. Subsequently, the
respondenthierein filed SC.No.96/2006 seeking refund
of was paid by the respondent/ tenant to
Vfthe’ petitioners’/Ihand lord while taking the premises on lease. it
case of respondent herein that on vacating the leased
“W\
premises he was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.6020/–after
deducting Rs.1,980/- towards arrears of rent from ouvtylofjlthe
rent advance of Rs.8,000/~. Since the petitioners .
the said anlount, respondent herein fiied..a_suit’ ‘for”recoveify of 0″‘
said sum along with interest at the of 11%’?/9″‘
20.8.2005. Accordingly, as on ~..date'” petitioriers * 0′
herein were liable to pay to respon.der1’t..pAin la’ tc-.ta.,1:§ sum of
Rs.7,400/–. In the said proceedir;gs»l::’ herein who
were defendants enteired /the claim of
respondent, set thongh the initial rent
was Rs.660~/”–;” nfiderstandirig between the
parties thatxjiffll in possession of leased
premises 3 years he has to pay 15%
tacéoraingiy, respondent is in arrears of
enharfi-ed” rer’1t.,La4fter”adjusting the advance amount lying with
:”them responderit himself will have to pay a sum of
Q vtowards arrears of enhanced rent for which they
“””\}
will be initiating necessary proceedings for recovery of the
said amount.
5. Thereafter, the suit was proceeded;-._ evj;denc’e–..: V’
recorded. after hearing the parties on
pleadings and evidence on record,,the trialddcourtyhas ‘come to
the conclusion that the respondent provdedfid of
rent deposit of Rs.8,000/– of rent
of Rs.1,980/” for 3 of the sarne
respondent herein /_ along
with the the court also held
that the failed to establish the rent
agreed to be by the more than Rs.660/~ and
that the V,._§respondent..V_dlfiirnseli is in arrears of a sum of
Rs’.~._1_ ‘Court further held that even assuming that
suchd’an:”an1ofin_t»–isarrears as stated by the petitioners, till
VV*,to(l:«1Vy no ‘.4st.epVsJ afipears to have taken by him for recovery of
.1 said.’~s1§1m—.._.’ Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of
W'”\
the petitioners herein that. the respondent himself is liable to
pay a sum of Rs.11,620/– and that respondent is not
to refund of Rs.6,020/– which is due to .
petitioners herein. Accordingiy, suit of_th.e__respon(ient dherein. id”
is decreed. The petitioner herein has chai1enge_d
decree in this revision.
6. In this procee(1ir1gs’,~..V_thesresponident hereirthis duly
served and represented by Couinself both the
parties and on appreciafion:=of the evidence
on record the foilovfiiiéj. ‘consideration of this
Court: “”” H
1] Whether” was justified in
decreemg. the Vsfuit-._fiIe'(Vi by respondent seeking
of balaziice. rent advance with interest
. ‘ wand _Vcosts’?~..,
.2} item: 6:e¢1tei::i>’
Coiirt answers point No.1 in the affirmative and
per the final order for the following reasons:
“”*~x
7. The relationship of tenant and iandiord between
respondent. and petitioners is admitted. The fact: that the
initial rent: for leased premises is Rs.660/–» and payrt1.eln.tT~:)f
Rs.8OO0/W as rent advance by respondent to .
admitted. The only point in dispute is,__yWhether”there.yfias’ K ”
agreement. for enhancement of rent v'{r_he’t.her_
has failed to pay the said enhance_d”~rent’, At’:oV_petttioners;… The * it
fact that there is no document. s1ich..yag:5eement
between the parties for enhanc’en;eri»t::’ failure on
the part of petit’,ionersLhereignltol_s?ub:stantiate.’ the same either
though oral establishes that
the said pleaby an excuse to deny refund
of advance them. The trial Court has
in the light of the fact that till
disp’osa3_oi’– A~st1_jit nosnit was fiied by petitioners for
7,:'”recovery -of st1chl’4j’.e::nhanced rent and not even a notice was
‘ the same. Hence, the trial Court has rightiy
_'”rej’ec’t.ed’ piea of petitioners herein and decreed the suit of
W1
respondent. It is seen that there is no irregularity <33: infirmity
in the order passed by the Trial Court which requires.
revised in this Revision Petition and petit'1oners_-5ha4v'e7 .
made out any ground to set aside ~.».the 9ifei1"":re.a'soned~s.V_ ti"
judgement passed by the Court of "
Chikrnagaiur, in S.C. NO.96/2006.~.Th§’ re\}’isions_V;t)etiti:C1ndoes
not merit admission and hence dis-missed-.withoutanjr order
as to costs.
8. At this’ it V. it the revision
petitioners the”:»ideereta1 amount has
already to deposit the balance
amount. Ace’o’rdi”ng1y,~.,_. time is granted to the
petitionersto depositthe balance decretal amount.
sd/-
IQDGE