Dismissed

The Regional Manager v. Dakshyani

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2022RFA/1219/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a rent decree was dismissed. The court granted the appellant eight weeks to secure permissions and dismantle an underground fuel tank before the premises could be fully utilized by the respondents. Failure to complete this task within the stipulated time would attract damages.

What did the court decide?

Eight weeks granted to secure permissions and dismantle underground fuel tank; Rs.25,000/month damages if not completed.

The Regional Manager Vs Dakshyani — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1219 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD NO.25, “VINOD COMPLEX” JAYACHAMARAJENDRA ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

1 . DAKSHYANI

¶10

W/O LATE B.G.SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT “ADARSH PALACE” DOOR NO.A 2, 47^TH CROSS 5^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU 560 290

¶11

B.S.VINOD

¶12

S/O LATE B.G.SHANTHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs. i.e., RESPONDENT NO.1, RESPONDENT NOs.2 TO 5

¶13

2. HEMALATHA PRATHAP

¶14

W/O PRATHAMKUMAR D/O LATE B.G.SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶15

¶16

3 . KALPANA V DHAWAN AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS W/O VIJAY DHAWAN

¶17

D/O LATE B.G.SHANTHAPPA

¶18

4 . KARUNA A HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O ANAND HIREMATH D/O LATE B.G.SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶19

5 . B.S.GOUTHAM S/O LATE B.G.SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SYED YOUSUF S/O LATE SYED HYDER AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶20

RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT “ADARSH PALACE” DOOR NO. A 2, 47^TH CROSS 5^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 290

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. BHARGAV .G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.R. GOPALASWAMY, ADVOATE FOR R1 TO R5))

¶23

¶24

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.978/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR ARREARS OF RENT AND DAMAGES AND ETC.

¶25

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION/REPORTING SETTLEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

appellant/defendant would fairly submit to this Court that, the respondents/plaintiffs based on the decree for ejectment, have initiated the execution proceedings in Execution Petition No.4417/2019. He would further submit that, the Executing Court has executed the decree by issuing delivery warrant and accordingly the possession is handed-over to the decree holder on 02.11.2021.

¶30

At this juncture, the counsel appearing for respondents/plaintiffs would submit to this Court that, though the decree holder has secured possession, the appellant/defendant is yet to dismantle the underground petrol tank, which still contains petroleum products. He would further submit to this Court that, unless the appellant/defendant totally dismantle the underground fuel tank, respondents/plaintiffs cannot utilize the premises.

¶31

¶32

At this juncture, counsel appearing for the

¶33

appellant/defendant submits that, the underground fuel tank has to be dismantled after securing permission from the statutory authorities as well as explosive authorities under the relevant Act. Therefore, he would submit to this Court that, the appellant needs to be granted some reasonable time to dismantle the underground fuel tank.

¶34

Perused the material on record.

¶35

On perusal of records this Court finds that,

¶36

the respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for ejectment way back in 2008 and the same was decreed in 2018 and the decree is executed by handing over possession to the respondents/plaintiffs on 02.11.2021. It is in this background, this Court feels that the appellant/defendant cannot squat over the premises under the guise of securing permission from the concerned authorities for dismantling the underground fuel tank. By not taking further recourse, the appellant/defendant is virtually depriving the lawful owner from utilising the said

¶37

¶38

premises, though possession is handed-over on

¶39

02.11.2021 itself.

¶40

At the request of the counsel for the appellant/defendant, by way of final indulgence, this Court would finally grant eight weeks time to secure appropriate permissions from the concerned authorities and to dismantle the underground fuel tank. The appellant/defendant shall be permitted by the respondents/plaintiffs to enter the premises and to dismantle the underground fuel tank. If this exercise is

¶41

not completed within eight weeks from today, the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month till the underground fuel tank is dismantled.

¶42

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands

¶43

dismissed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

KGR*

The Regional Manager v. Dakshyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Manager v. Dakshyani

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 Anglo French Drugs and Industries Ltd. Vs M/S Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Shilpa Agarbatti Company Private Limited Vs Bharat Industrial Corporation

M/S Venkaat Movies Vs Sri Alias Srinivas Raju

Sri C N Vedanth Vs Sri C N Keshava Murthy

Sri S Venkatesh Vs Sri Khodandarama

Kumaraswamy Vs H S Puttamadappa