Dismissed

Shri M Nusruthulla Shariff v. Shri Phool Chand

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2021HRRP/119/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a revision petition filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act regarding a landlord-tenant dispute. The court held the petition infructuous as the tenant had vacated the shop and noted procedural discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' prayer for remand and liberty to amend pleadings was denied; the plea for lower court order was dismissed as the petition was infructuous.

Shri M Nusruthulla Shariff Vs Shri Phool Chand — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶5

HRRP NO.119 OF 2013 (IO)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SHRI M. NUSRUTHULLA SHARIFF S/O LATE M. KALIMULLA SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.26, COCKBURN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 051

¶8

SMT. NAEEMA BEGUM W/O SHRI M. NUSRUTHULLA SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.26, COCKBURN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 051

¶9

SHRI BHARAT KUMAR S/O LATE NAINMALJI JAIN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.102, 1^ST FLOOR PANCHARATHNA RACE VIEW APARTMENTS NO.51/1, KALIDASA MARG 6^TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 009

¶10

SHRI. VIKAS B. JAIN S/O SHRI. BHERULAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.201, 2^ND FLOOR PANCHARATHNA RACE VIEW APARTMENT NO.51/1, KALIDASA MARG

¶11

¶12

6^TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 009 … PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.V. B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND :

¶15

SHRI PHOOL CHAND S/O LATE KUNDANMAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS M/S DEEPAK FASHION SHOP NO.GF-11, GROUND FLOOR, JALARAM MARKET NO.18, MARAMMA GUDI BEEDHI D. K. LANE CROSS BANGALORE – 560 053

¶16

NIRAJ JAIN C. S/O CHAGANLAL PROPRIETOR OF DEEPAK FASHIONS PRIVATE SHOP NO.GF-11 GROUND FLOOR, JALARAM MARKET NO.18, MARAMMA GUDI BEEDHI D. K. LANE CROSS, BANGALORE – 560 053

¶17

ALSO AT:

¶18

NIRAJ C. JAIN S/O CHAGANLAL R/AT NO.11 & 112 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST FLOOR G. N. LAYOUT, LALBAGH ROAD CROSS BANGALORE – 560 027 … RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.H. J. SANGHVI, ADV. FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2014 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶20

¶21

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 31.07.2013 PASSED IN HRC.NO.260/2011 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION NO.2 FILED UNDER SECTION 43 OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999.

¶22

THIS HRRP COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, (SCCH-1) Bengaluru, in H.R.C.No.260/2011, the petitioners therein have preferred this revision petition.

¶25

The case of the petitioners is that they are

¶26

the landlords and respondent is a tenant in occupation of a non-residential shop premises No.FF-1 in the first

¶27

floor of a commercial complex known as ‘Jalaram Market’ situated at No.18, Maramma Gudi Beedhi, D.K.Lane Cross, Bengaluru. In order to vacate the respondent – tenant, the petitioners instituted the proceedings before the Court of Small Causes,

¶28

¶29

Bengaluru. However, as there was discrepancy in the pleadings and the rent receipts, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and based upon I.A.2 filed by respondent No.1 under Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, has dismissed H.R.C.No.260/2011 and directed the parties to approach competent Civil Court to establish their claim. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners therein have preferred this revision petition.

¶30

It is noticed that originally petition was filed

¶31

alleging that respondent No.1 was a tenant of Shop No.FF-1, which is in the first floor of the property but by way of amendment, the petitioners amended the petition to show the same as GF No.11 in the ground floor of the property and thereafter, the petitioners without getting any order from the Court for amending the body and the schedule of the petition filed

¶32

¶33

amended petition on 10.12.2012 showing the schedule as per the original petition. Further, the alleged rent receipts also do not show the shop number consistently. In addition, the name of respondent No.2 was also inserted. But there are no specific pleading as to what is his relation with petitioner and no specific prayer is made against him.

¶34

In the instant revision also there is no clarification as to whether Respondent No.2 is a tenant or not. However, after service of notice, Respondent No.1 alone is represented by an advocate and respondent No.2 is unrepresented.

¶35

During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a mistake committed in the lower Court because of which discrepancies have arisen and for the said reasons, the trial Court has rejected the

¶36

¶37

petition and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. He further submits that the matter can be remanded back and he be given liberty to file correct pleadings and continue the matter in the interest of justice. He further submits that the property in dispute is situated in first floor of ‘Jalaram Market’ and the shop number is FF-1 and that the petition does

¶38

not pertains to any shops in the ground floor.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1

¶40

submits that he has already vacated the shop bearing No.FF-1 in the first floor of the premises and that the petition itself has become infructuous. He further states that he is in possession of a shop in ground floor. He does not state anything as to Respondent No.2.

¶41

The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is placed on record. He has

¶42

¶43

categorically stated that he is not in occupation of shop No.FF-1.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petition pertains to shop No.FF-1 and not any shop in the ground floor. He does not state anything as to the status of respondent no.2. As respondent no.1 has already vacated shop No.FF-1, the revision petition has become infructuous. In respect of respondent no.2, the petitioners have not made out any case. If the petitioners have any grievance as against respondent no.2, they are always at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against respondent no.2 in the manner known to law.

¶45

For the aforementioned reasons, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

MH/-

Shri M Nusruthulla Shariff v. Shri Phool Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri M Nusruthulla Shariff v. Shri Phool Chand

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

M/S Sri Raghavendra Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Bank of Mysore

Smt Tulasiprabha Vs Kumari Rashmi

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs a Girish

Smt Sharadhamma Vs Smt Muniyamma @ Chikka Hudugi

Smt. Nanjamma Vs Sri. N. Narasimhamurthy

Sri. Vinay Sudhakar Vs Sri. v. S Ramanath