Disposed

Shri. Rafiq S/O Meerasab Mirjabhai v. Shri. Kashinath S/O Mahadevappa Hindiholi

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2018HRRP/100002/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a review petition arising from a lease dispute. The court granted tenants six months to vacate the premises and vacate possession, deviating from their initial offer of two years, while requiring rent payment in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Tenants granted six months from today to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises.

Shri. Rafiq S/O Meerasab Mirjabhai Vs Shri. Kashinath… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

H.R.R.P. NO.100002/2018

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SHRI. RAFIQ S/O MEERASAB MIRJABHAI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUISNESS, R/O: JALAL GALLI, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.

¶8

SHRI.ARIF S/O MEERASAB MIRJABHAI AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUISNESS, R/O: JALAL GALLI, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307..

¶9

SHRI.IRSHAD S/O MEERASAB MIRJABHAI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUISNESS, R/O: JALAL GALLI, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307..

¶10

SHRI.SADIQ S/O MEERASAB MIRJABHAI AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BUISNESS, R/O: JALAL GALLI, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307..

¶11

SHRI.FARUQ S/O MEERASAB MIRJABHAI AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUISNESS, R/O: JALAL GALLI, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307..

¶12

SHRI.SHAKEEL AHMED @ UMAR FARUQ S/O MEERASAB MIRJABHAI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUISNESS, R/O: JALAL GALLI, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

SHRI.JAITUNBI W/O MEERASAB MIRJABHAI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUISNESS, R/O: JALAL GALLI, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.

¶15

... PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI.G.B.NAIK & SMT.P.G.NAIK, ADV.) AND

¶17

SHRI. KASHINATH S/O MAHADEVAPPA HINDIHOLI AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: OPPOSITE OLD TMC, GOKAK-591307.

¶18

SHRI.MAHADEV S/O SHIVALINGAPPA HINDIHOLI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: OPPOSITE OLD TMC, GOKAK-591307.

¶19

SHRI.SHIVALINGAPPA S/O MAHADEV HINDIHOLI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: OPPOSITE OLD TMC, GOKAK-591307.

¶20

... RESPONDENT(S)

¶21

(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT, ADV.)

¶22

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER AND DECREE DTD:12.04.2018 IN H.R.C. APPEAL NO.1/2016 PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT GOKAK, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED AGAINST THE ORDER AND DECREE DTD:02.11.2015 IN HRC.NO.1/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.27(A) AND (R) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT.

¶23

THIS HRRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

At the time of hearing the present petition, the petitioners’ counsel submitted that if the petitioners – tenants are given two years time to vacate the premises, that they are ready to vacate the premises without urging the merits of the case.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents

¶28

submitted, with the instructions of the respondent No.1 – landlord, who is present before the Court that since 14 years the present respondent No.1 – landlord is fighting for vacating the premises. He is aged about more than 60 years. It is further submitted that the said premises is going to be demolished for the purpose of widening of the road and some of his portion of the property is going to be demolished and in order to accommodate himself

¶29

by renovating the premises, he requires some more time. Hence, he prays that if six months time is granted, he is agreeable to give the said period to the petitioners

¶30

– tenants.

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

After negotiation and by taking into

¶33

consideration the facts and circumstances, I feel that if six months time is granted to vacate the said premises, then it is going to meet the ends of justice.

¶34

In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners – tenants that they have to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises within a period of six months from today. Failing which the respondent No.1 – owner is permitted to file an execution and to execute the decree of the Trial Court.

¶35

It is further made clear that the rent which has been earlier agreed between the parties at the rate of Rs.450/- per month, up to date rent has to be paid, till the premises is vacated. If the said rent is not paid, respondent No.1 – owner is at liberty to recover the same by filing the execution.

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

With the above observations, the petition is hereby disposed of.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to

¶39

file an affidavit of the petitioners – tenants undertaking to the above effect in the Registry.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Rsh

Shri. Rafiq S/O Meerasab Mirjabhai v. Shri. Kashinath S/O Mahadevappa Hindiholi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Rafiq S/O Meerasab Mirjabhai v. Shri. Kashinath S/O Mahadevappa Hindiholi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadevi Vs Basayya Nagayya Pujari

Krupa Manjusha W/O Kamal K Vs Kamal K Koyan S/O Koyan a

Suman W/O Sunil Nimbal, Vs Sunil S/O Basavaraj Nimbal

The New India Assurance Co, Ltd. Vs Revati Datta Durgekar

The Legal Manager, Vs Ratnavva W/O Shankarappa Tattimani

Kumari.Sheela D/O Kenchappagouda Patil, Vs Smt.Shantavva W/O Shivalingappa Koujalagi