Disposed

Sri Umesh Rao v. Sri N K Jagannivas Rao

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2021RSA/959/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to eject the appellant-defendant. The court fixed a reasonable rent and granted a stay of execution of the eviction order until the appellant delivered vacant possession within 18 months under specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order upheld with stay on vacation of possession for 18 months subject to rent payment and affidavit conditions.

Sri Umesh Rao Vs Sri N K Jagannivas Rao — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶5

R.S.A NO.959 OF 2019 (POS)

¶6

Between :

¶7

Sri. Umesh Rao S/o T.Ishwarappayya Aged about 63 years Aravinda Automobiles Near Mahalingeshwara Temple Main Road Puttur, D.K – 574201.

¶8

…. Appellant

¶9

(By Sri. Suyog Hesale, Advocate for Sri.Aruna Shyam M, Advocate)

¶10

And :

¶11

Sri.N.K. Jagannivas Rao S/o Natoji Krishnayya Aged about 71 years R/at Nattoji House Bappalige, Puttur D.K – 574201.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

(By Sri.Keshava Bhat A, Advocate)

¶14

This RSA is filed Under Section 100 of CPC 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2019 passed in RA No.1/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur Taluk, D.K. dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2015 passed in O.S.No.04/2015 (Old No.43/2007) on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K.

¶15

¶16

This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

This appeal is filed by the appellant - defendant in O.S.No.4/2015 challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court in O.S.No.4/2015 and R.A.No.1/2016 by which both the Courts below held that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to eject the appellant - defendant from the suit schedule property.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant for a substantial length of time, the appellant submitted that he would quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property if sufficient time is granted to him.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent submitted that

¶21

the appellant was paying rent of Rs.150/- per month, which was too low and therefore, prays that this Court may fix reasonable amount of rent and grant reasonable

¶22

¶23

time of 1½ years to enable the defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises.

¶24

This Court thus suggested to the appellant to

¶25

pay a monthly rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month, which was agreed and accepted by the learned counsel for the defendant after consulting his client and he also agreed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property within 1½ years from today.

¶26

In that view of the above, this appeal is disposed

¶27

off directing the appellant - defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property by or before 31^st September 2022, subject to following conditions;

¶28

a) The appellant - defendant shall file an affidavit within two weeks from today undertaking that he shall pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- to the plaintiff by way of demand draft or by transferring to the account of the

¶29

¶30

plaintiff on or before 1^st day of every calendar month with effect from the month of March, 2021.

¶31

b) The appellant – defendant shall state in the affidavit that he has not underlet/sublet and shall not sublet/under-let any portion of the premises in question to any person whomsoever.

¶32

c) The appellant - defendant shall undertake in the affidavit that he shall quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property by 31.09.2022.

¶33

d) The appellant-defendant shall undertake in the affidavit that in the event of any single default in payment of rent to the respondent - plaintiff, the respondent-plaintiff shall be entitled to execute the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.4/2015.

¶34

It is needless to mention that if the appellantdefendant has sub-let any person into the premises; such person shall also be vacated from the premises while executing O.S.No.4/2015.

¶35

¶36

Subject to the above, the impugned judgments and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.4/2015 and First Appellate Court in R.A.No.1/2016 are upheld.

¶37

The appellant - defendant is at liberty to remove any construction put up by them in the suit schedule property before 31^st September, 2022.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

NBM

Sri Umesh Rao v. Sri N K Jagannivas Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Umesh Rao v. Sri N K Jagannivas Rao

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

Smt R N Meenakshi Vs P Kamalesh Kumar

Smt K B Yamuna Vs Sri K C Ramachandrappa

B H Gangadharappa Gowda S/O Devappa Gowda Vs Sharadamma W/O Late Ningoji Rao

Sri Joseph D Souza Vs Sri Dharmesh

Smt. Pankaja Vs Sri Dinesh Kumar

Sri K Murugendran Vs Sri K Dakshayani Kumar