Disposed

Sri S Ramesh Babu v. Sri C Honnaiah

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2022HRRP/15/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka set aside the order rejecting the revision petition. The Court directed Trial Court to dispose of eviction petition based on forensic lab confirming tenant's signature within one year.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order and direct the Trial Court to dispose of the eviction petition on merits within one year from receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sri S Ramesh Babu Vs Sri C Honnaiah — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

H.R.R.P.NO.15/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S. RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. SRINIVAS, R/AT NO.15/2, VYSALA NAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, NEAR MUTHURAYA SWAMY TEMPLE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091

¶9

SRI. RANGANATHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH, R/AT NO.15/2, VYSALA NAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, NEAR MUTHURAYA SWAMY TEMPLE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091 ... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND: SRI. C. HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHIKKAIAH, R/AT NO.86, 7^TH CROSS, SUNKADAKATTE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N. SHANKARA NARAYANA BHAT & SRI. LOHIT. R., ADVOCATES)

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU ON I.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 43 OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT IN H.R.C.NO.134/2008 BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.6 ON THE GROUND OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶14

THIS HRRP COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This revision petition under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short “the Act”) is filed challenging the order dated 08.03.2009 passed by the VII Additional Judge and XXXII ACMM Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in H.R.C.No.134/2008 by which the application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 43 of the Act, was dismissed.

¶17

The petition in H.R.C.No.134/2008 was filed for eviction of the petitioners from the petition schedule premises. The petitioner No.1 herein, who was a tenant, entered appearance and claimed that he was not a tenant in the premises. Since the petitioner No.1 herein claimed in his written statement that his brother-in-law, Ranganath, was running a business in the petition schedule premises, the respondent filed an application to implead the said Ranganath, which was

¶18

: 3 :

¶19

rejected and was challenged before this Court in H.R.R.P.No.58/2011. This Court in terms of the order dated 16.11.2011 allowed the application and directed the Trial Court to decide the jural relationship between the parties in view of Section 43 of the Act. Based on such observation, the petitioners herein filed an application to determine the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioners herein and that application was rejected in terms of the impugned order.

¶20

When this revision petition was taken up for consideration, this Court felt it appropriate to get the signature of petitioner No.1 compared with his admitted signature in the pleadings and accordingly referred the same for comparison. The Forensic Science Laboratory has submitted its report indicating that the signature of the petitioner No.1 found on the lease agreement corresponds to his signature in the pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, this revision petition may be disposed of directing the Trial Court to consider the eviction petition on merits. In addition, since the learned counsel for the petitioners has acknowledged the

¶21

: 4 :

¶22

relationship, it is appropriate to set aside the impugned order and direct the Trial Court to dispose of the eviction petition at the earliest, which shall not be later than one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶23

The petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶24

Sd/JUDGE

¶25

YAN

Sri S Ramesh Babu v. Sri C Honnaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Ramesh Babu v. Sri C Honnaiah

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

National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Vs Kogurushivaramulu

The Commissioner Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Sri.Sri. Gnanaprabhu Vs A.M. Mahadevappa

Sri T Shivaji Rao Vs Smt Kushala Bai

M/S Tilaknagar Industries Ltd. Vs M/S Anupama Wine Distributors

Mrs. Usha Narayana Rao Vs M/S Vinod Brothers