Allowed the revision petition against an eviction decree, accepting that the 15-day notice requirement was met. Granted the petitioner one year to vacate while maintaining rent payments at Rs. 7,500 per month.
Petition allowed; petitioner granted one year to vacate the property upon filing an undertaking to pay monthly rent of Rs. 7,500.
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 17th DAY OF September 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH
C.R.P. No.32 / 2013
BETWEEN :
Tejabir Singh S/o Gyan Singh, aged 65 years, Proprietor Punjab Cool Welding No.61, (PID No.48-1-61) H.Siddaiah Road, Bangalore.
.. Petitioner
( By Sri M.N. Sathya Raj for Sathya Raj Associates )
AND :
Both are R/at No.C-41, 31st Main, B.T.M.Layout, Opp.Lake, Bangalore-76.
.. Respondents
( By Sri S.Y.Kumbar, Advocate )
This CRP is filed under 115 of CPC R/w. Section 18 of Small Causes Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2012 passed in S.C.No.1581/2011 on the file of I Addl.SCJ & MACT, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for ejectment.
2
This CRP coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following :
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel representing the parties.
Addl. Small Causes Judge, in S.C.No.1581/2011 dated 30th October 2012. It is the case of the plaintiffs-respondents that they purchased the suit schedule property bearing No.61, situated at H.Siddaiah Road, Bangalore, from the erstwhile owners under two Sale Deeds dated 26.3.2001. The defendantpetitioner herein is said to be the tenant under the vendor of the respondents and he is running a welding shop. The tenancy was renewed from time to time and also petitioner was paying monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- per month. It is contended by the plaintiffs that, from 26.3.2011 they became absolute owners and are in possession of suit schedule property. Plaintiff No.1 is doing his business in two shops situated in the ground floor of premises bearing Old No.15, later No.7, the present number is 7/1-1, 3rd cross, Journalist Colony, Bangalore. They issued legal notice to
3
the petitioner to vacate and hand over the premises. But, the defendant did not vacate and hence, they filed the suit. The matter was contested before the trial Court by filing written statement contending that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant and also stating that plaintiffs have no right to seek eviction. The trial Court having raised as many as four points for consideration, held all the three points in the affirmative and passed an order of eviction. Further it was ordered that the plaintiffs are liable to pay Rs.90,000/- to the defendant or to adjust the amount out of damages i.e., rent at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of purchase i.e., on 26.3.2011. Against which, this petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant among various other grounds.
4
was filed and accordingly, sought for setting aside the impugned judgment.
5
referring to the endorsement and the postal shara i.e., postal seal is affixed on 10.6.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no clear 15 days notice etc. The seal affixed on the cover notice might be of 10.6.2011. Ultimately, when it has reached the defendant is not clear from the postal shara nor it has been explained. The notice is said to be dated 4.6.2011 and suit is filed on 25.6.2011. It is also noticed that the notice was returned as not claimed. In that view of the matter, notice is deemed to have been served on the defendant by virtue of the shara of the postal department, might be between 4.6.2011 to 10.6.2011. As such, there appears to be clear 15 days notice as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and defendant was unable to establish his right as to adverse possession and also semblance of right. Rightly the trial Court passed an order of eviction which does not call for interference. However, since petitioner is running the shop premises, he is given one year time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises, subject to he filing an undertaking to the effect that he shall go on paying the monthly rent of Rs.7,500/- and that after completion of one year from
6
today, he will vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises within four weeks from today. Failing which, the respondents-plaintiffs will proceed against him by filing an execution petition.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
bk/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the clear 15-day notice required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was properly issued prior to the filing of the suit for ejectment.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to an extension of time to vacate the premises while continuing to pay rent.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Tejabir Singh
Wahid Khan
Shammemunnissa
Huluvadi G. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Huluvadi G. Ramesh
Parties & counsel
