The High Court disposed of a regular first appeal against a decree for ejectment. The appellant requested and was granted additional time to vacate the suit schedule premises until March 31, 2013, accepting the lower court's findings on tenancy issues.
Time to vacate the premises granted till 31st March 2013; appeal disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 175/2012
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE M/S. MOHAN FOOT WEAR, SHOP NO.201, YATHIRAJA MUTT BUILDING, 11TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M.S. MANDANNA, ADV.,)
2
AND:
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. SRIRANGA, ADV., FOR JUST LAW FOR R1)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.09.2011 PASSED IN O.S. NO.4186/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE III-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants herein are the defendants in O.S. No. 4186/1997.
The suit in question was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking for
a judgment and decree of ejectment to evict the defendants therein
3
from the suit schedule property. The Court below after considering the materials available on record has decreed the suit and had granted six months time to vacate from the suit schedule premises. Insofar as the mean profits, a separate enquiry was ordered. The defendants no. 2 to 4 claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment are before this Court.
4
its correct perspective has decreed the suit, which is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
5
of land lord and tenant, since the defendants no. 2 to 4 had only succeeded to the right which was available in favour of their predecessor has arrived at the conclusion that the defendants no. 1 to 4 can only be considered as the joint tenants having acquired the right under their predecessor. Keeping these aspects in view, the Court below has also taken note of the evidence tendered by both the parties and had held that the notice issued is in accordance with law by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.C. Pandi Vs. G.C. Paul reported in AIR 1989 SC 1470. In that view, when the notice served is in accordance with law, there is absolutely no reason to disagree with the findings of the Court below.
6
agree to some reasonable time would state that the time as sought by the appellants is too long a period considering the fact that the litigation has been pending from the year 1997 and the trial Court itself had granted six months time to vacate. Though, I see some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, I am of the opinion, considering that the appellants were in possession of the property for quite some time and the premises being a commercial premises, they would have to make alternative arrangement to shift. Further, the appellants in any event has agreed to withdraw the appeal subject to the reasonable time being granted to them, thus ensuring finality to the litigation. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that the appellants should be granted time till 31st March 2013 to which the respondents also concede. The time to vacate is accordingly granted till 31st March 2013. . The appellants shall also file an affidavit within a period of four weeks indicating therein that they would voluntarily vacate the suit schedule premises on or before 31st March 2013 and they shall
7
not induct any other person in the premises during the said period.
Sd/JUDGE
ST*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be disposed of by granting time to vacate the premises.
Whether the appellants should be granted additional time beyond the six months already ordered by the trial court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H.C. Pandi Vs. G.C. PaulRelied on¶34
H.C. Pandi Vs. G.C. Paul reported in AIR 1989 SC 1470 · Who else cites this
SMT MUNIYAMMA
SRI K.SUNDAR
SRI K.TEEKARAM
SRI YADUGIRI YATHIRAJA MUTT
SRI THIRUVENGADAM
A.S. BOPANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
