Partly allowed

M K Ballukaraya Since Dead by His Lrs v. G M Siddaramanna Charitable Trust (Regd)

Karnataka HC29 Sept 2021RSA/1051/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants sought a two-year extension to vacate property. The High Court, noting previous consent for a three-year period and employment of workers, granted one additional year (until November 19, 2025) on condition of paying increased rent.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time to vacate premises granted until 19.11.2025 subject to payment of enhanced rent of Rs. 50,000 per month in advance.

M K Ballukaraya Since Dead by His Lrs Vs G M… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

RSA NO. 1051/2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

[M K BALLUKARAYA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS AND OTHERS VS. G M SIDDARAMANNA CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD)]

¶4

19.11.2024

¶5

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

ORAL ORDER ON I.A. NO.1/2024

¶8

Heard the appellants' counsel and the counsel appearing

¶9

for the respondent on I.A. No.1/2024, wherein prayer is sought for extension of time for a period of two years from 30.9.2024 to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property.

¶10

In support of the application, the appellant no.2 on behalf of all the appellants, has sworn to an affidavit stating that at the time of admission of the appeal, appellants had given proposal for enhancement of rent and agreed to pay the enhanced rent of Rs.30,000/- per month from October-2021 and also agreed to vacate the premises on or before 30.9.2024. But due to loss of business, appellants could not able to construct their own building to run the hotel business and further making hectic attempts to get permission from the

¶11

¶12

RSA NO. 1051/2020

¶13

competent authorities to construct the building of their own.

¶14

It is also sworn to that there are about 60 employees working under the appellants and their livelihood is entirely depending upon the hotel business and therefore, he is even ready to pay additional rent of Rs.20,000/-, in all Rs.50,000/- per month without fail and considering these aspects, he sought for extension of time to vacate the suit schedule property.

¶15

The said application is opposed by the respondent by filing statement of objections, wherein it is admitted that the appellants have paid arrears of rent up to the end of 30.9.2024 and contended that the appellants had undertaken to vacate the premises by 30.9.2024. It is also contended that the entire premises is very old and is in dilapidated condition and it may collapse at any time and the photographs also produced before the Court to show the condition of the building. It is further contended that he is paying property tax to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- per year. Even the enhanced rent comes to Rs.6,00,000/-, which is equal to the yearly property tax of the premises and infact the appellants are not running the hotel and lodge in the premises involved in this appeal. Beyond this,

¶16

the appellants has sub-let a big portion of the hotel building for a commercial business Mall named "New Metro Big Bazar" and

¶17

¶18

RSA NO. 1051/2020

¶19

thus, they are getting huge monthly rent by way of sub-letting illegally and unauthorizedly and the theory of putting up new construction and that about 60 employees working under appellants, is a false ground set out in the affidavit and hence not entitled for any relief.

¶20

In reply to the objections statement, the appellants' counsel submits that even the appellants are ready to make an application for appointment of Court Commissioner to show that till now, they are running the hotel business and 60 employees are working under them and not sub-let the same. However, learned counsel appearing for respondent is not ready for appointment of the Court commissioner to make inspection of the premises to find out the veracity of the submission of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants produced the photographs of the front portion of the premises since the respondent has produced photographs of rear side portion of the building.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the photographs produced by the appellants and the respondent, it is seen that other shop owners are continuing their business in the same premises. It is also seen

¶22

¶23

RSA NO. 1051/2020

¶24

that rear portion of the premises appears to be old one, but the front portion appears to be in a habitable condition. Without looking into the merits of the case, this Court by consent has already granted three years' time to quit and vacate the premises. Now, the respondent is not agreeable for further extension of time for a period of two years. The appellants have already suffered an order of eviction and also given consent for vacating the premises after a period of three years i.e, on or before 30.9.2024. Even on expiry of three years, only ground urged is that they could not get the alternate accommodation and the appellants yet to commence building to shift his business. However, considering the ground of sixty employees are working with appellants, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one year time to vacate the premises with a condition to pay the additional sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as agreed, in all Rs.50,000/- per month from 01.10.2024.

¶25

In view of the above, the appellants are directed to

¶26

pay the enhanced rent of Rs.50,000/- per month from 1^st October 2024 and in advance pay the rent every month. It is made clear that no time will be extended further, whether other tenants in the premises vacates or not and the appellants cannot put any condition before the Court that they can

¶27

¶28

RSA NO. 1051/2020

¶29

continue till the vacating of the other tenants in the premises in future and seek further extension of time.

¶30

Appellants are directed to file an affidavit undertaking that they will pay the rent of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) per month from 1^st October 2024 till vacating the premises i.e., 19.11.2025. If they fail to file undertaking affidavit within one week from today, they will not enure to the benefit of this order.

¶31

Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2024 is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶33

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

M K Ballukaraya Since Dead by His Lrs v. G M Siddaramanna Charitable Trust (Regd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M K Ballukaraya Since Dead by His Lrs v. G M Siddaramanna Charitable Trust (Regd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pushpalatha Vs M. Madhava

Smt. Nagamma Vs Smt. K.C.Savithri

G P Ramachandrappa Vs G K Venkatesh

Raju Vs Smt Jayamma

Smt Geetha Vs Sri Kempegowda

Sri.B.J.Sanjay Vs Sri.H.C.Baburajendra