Disposed

Devu v. v Venkatagiri Education Trust

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2022RP/61/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka reviewed an order dismissing a writ petition regarding a lease deed. The court modified the disposal to allow the lessors (petitioners) to undertake spot inspections and periodic repairs more frequently than once a year, provided such activities occur only on Sundays, public holidays, or vacations after prior written notice to ensure student safety and operational conti

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to undertake spot inspection after school hours and effect repairs on Sundays, holidays/vacations only, after prior written notice.

Devu Vs v Venkatagiri Education Trust — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO.61 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DEVU, W/O LATE V VENKATAGIRI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶9

V BALU, S/O LATE V VENKATAGIRI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.197, 1^ST STAGE, BRINDAVAN EXTENSION, MYSURU – 570 020.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. T.A.KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

V VENKATAGIRI EDUCATION TRUST, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PREMISES NO.197, 1^ST STAGE, BRINDAVAN EXTENSION, MYSURU – 570 020. REP BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶15

SHIKSHKARNI CENTRAL SCHOOL, OFFICE AT NO.236/1 & 236/2, (VIJAYNAGAR), HEBBAL 1^ST STAGE, M G KOPPAL ROAD, MYSURU – 570 016. (REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL)

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.R K MAHADEVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶18

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21/12/2020 PASSED IN W.P.NO.15187/2020 AND DISMISS THE PETITION, IN THE ALTENRATIVE PERMIT THE PEITTIONERS TO INVOLVE IN THE MANAGEMENT, ADMINISTRATION AND AFFAIRS OF THE SCHOOLS AS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Review Petition is moved by respondents in the

¶23

Writ Petition No. 15187/2020 which has been disposed off

¶24

vide judgment dated 21.12.2020. The operative portion of the same reads as under:

¶25

“Both the sides having argued the matter at length vociferously, now are graciously agreeable with the suggestion of this court that in terms of Condition No.6 in the subject lease dated 22.6.2007, a copy whereof is at AnnexureC, it is open to the respondents to go to the leasehold premises only for the limited purpose of effecting the repairs, if any, once in a year or so, and except that, they shall not disturb the run of the school, otherwise.

¶26

Ordered accordingly, all contentions of the parties having been kept open to be dealt with by the court below.

¶27

Writ Petition is disposed off. ”

¶28

¶29

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners

¶30

drawing attention of the Court to a clause in the Lease Deed dated 22.06.2007 argues that, the spot inspection and repairs if any can be done only once in a year and this having not been adverted to by the Court, the judgment needs to be recalled. He also seeks an order facilitating participation of his clients in the management of the institutions in question.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the review petition contending that the question of permitting the review petitioners to participate in the management of the institution would not even remotely arise for consideration. He also makes submission in justification of the judgment in review. So contending he seeks dismissal of review petition.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶33

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is

¶34

¶35

inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶36

(a) As already mentioned above the judgment in review permits the review petitioners to undertake spot inspection of the leasehold premises and annual repair of the structure. However, in Coorg area rains lash heavily and at times during non-season. Therefore repairing the structure only once in a year will not be sufficient. Thus periodic repairs say twice or thrice a year has to be done to keep the building safe & upright.

¶37

(b) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

¶38

herein is also more than justified in contending that either spot inspection or repair have to be done only on Sunday or public holiday so that no prejudice would be caused to the classes and the students. That is the purpose for which the lease has been obtained.

¶39

(c) The vehement contention of counsel for the respondent herein that the very clause in the lease speaks of annual repair and therefore there is no reason

¶40

¶41

to review the judgment, is bit difficult to countenance.

¶42

The relevant clause in the lease deed reads as under:

¶43

“That the Lesses hereby undertake to keep the schedule property in good and habitable condition during the tenure of this lease and to allow the Lessor or her representatives to inspect the Schedule Property at all reasonable times. That it is hereby agreed that the Lessor shall attend to the annual repairs and maintenance of the Schedule Property.”

¶44

(d) A literal interpretation of the above clause in the deed arguably lends support to the contention of the respondent. However what we are interpreting is an instrument of lease and not an Act of the Parliament. The clauses in an instrument like this need to be construed, is true. However in doing that common sense cannot be kept in cold storage. As already mentioned above, it is in the interest of safety of the students & the staff of the institution, that periodic repairs as & when required have to be accomplished. One cannot insist that such a repair cannot be done more than once a year. An argument to the contrary would cause damage to the structure which is part of the lease, as well. It is the

¶45

¶46

duty of lessor to keep the leasehold property in a usable condition.

¶47

In the above circumstances, this review petition is disposed off permitting the petitioners to undertake spot inspection after the school hours but not frequently and to effect repairs, if required to the structure, only on Sunday or holiday/vacation, of course, after prior notice in writing to the respondents.

¶48

Costs made easy.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Bsv

Devu v. v Venkatagiri Education Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devu v. v Venkatagiri Education Trust

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

Sri Gautam Chand Jain Vs Smt v Sandhya

Rajib Chakravorty Vs the Authorised Officer

Sree Rjk Fuel Station Vs the Bharat Petroleum

Shri. Sujith Kumar Vs Registrar General

Smt. Manasa T S Vs Dr G M Upendra Kumar

Mr. Vijaykumar Vs the State by