In an appeal challenging an ex-parte decree for possession, the High Court refused to admit the case because the appellant failed to deposit the determined arrears of rent or substantiate the claim of suspension of utilities.
The admission of the appeal was declined and the appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.727 OF 2022 (POS)
BETWEEN :
SRI.M.KANTILAL JAIN S/O LATE MITTALAL AGED 53 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S. AMARAJYOTHI PAPER CO., NO.125/9/1, BALAJI COMPLEX SULTANPET, BENGALURU-560053. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.C.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)
AND :
SRI.R.ASHOK S/O LATE M.C.RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.124, 7TH MAIN AVALAHALLI, B.D.A EXTENSION 3RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560050. …RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.LEKHA CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR SRI.RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADV.)
THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.570/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION.
THIS R.F.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
Appeal by the defendant, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 67th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-68), Bengaluru in O.S.No.570/2021 on 30th October 2021 whereby suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed and an order of ejectment was passed directing the defendant from vacating and deliver the vacant possession to the plaintiff within three months from October 30, 2021 and also directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/- p.m., towards arrears of rent from May 2018, till the filing of the suit.
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment in O.S.No.570/2021. The defendant though served with the notice, did not appear before the Trial Court and did not file written statement within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the Trial Court considered the materials placed on record by the plaintiff and formulated the following points for consideration:
3
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has duly terminated the tenancy of the defendant over the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
3. What Order or Decree?
has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
4
inferences from admitted and proved facts and those inferences drawn by the court below are erroneous.
5
months, premises required for his personal use and occupation, failed to pay rentals, appellant failed to keep up his promise of vacating the premises and dodged the respondent. The appellant submits that the respondent failed to provide basic amenities such as water, electricity etc., and thereby the appellant was forced to keep the premises under lock and key. Thus the suit involved important issues, which could not be agitated due to denial of opportunity to the appellant.
� The suit was filed on 21.1.2021, the evidence was commenced on 5.10.2021 and the entire period was spent in Covid-19 situation and the court proceedings was seriously affected, the clients were not allowed and even counsel were not allowed to enter the court premises and in that period only the suit was decided. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court extended the period of limitation up to 3.10.2021 considering the pandemic situation. The lower court failed to extend the said benefit to the appellant.
6
7
8
appellant/defendant vehemently contended that the plaintiff high handedly removed the water and electricity connection to the suit property whereby the defendant/appellant was unable to reside in the said premises and therefore, he is not liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per month from May 2018, till the date of filing of the suit and sought for allowing the appeal.
9
challenge before this Court in this appeal is an ex-parte decree. It requires no emphasis that in such matters,
10
higher Courts would always provide an opportunity for the parties to contest the matter. This Court would have also provided such an opportunity for the appellant provided, the appellant pays or deposits arrears of rent.
the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiff has high handedly removed the water and electricity connection which resulted in defendant/appellant to vacate and handover the possession to the plaintiff.
11
14. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Admission declined.
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
NC.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal challenging an ex-parte decree for possession should allow admission without deposit of arrears of rent.
Whether the appellant has substantiated the claim that possession was handed over due to denial of water and electricity.
M. Kantilal Jain
R. Ashok
V. Shrinandan
A. Dargan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
