Disposed

Anand Basavavataray @ Basavantaray Sasanur v. Sureshbabu S/O Mahantappa Nidagundi

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2022WP/107313/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging an appellate order that rejected a temporary injunction. The court modified its own prior interim orders to restrain permanent construction but permitted respondents to continue business operations as lessees and directed expeditious disposal of the underlying suit.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; trial court directed to conclude proceedings within eight months; interim orders modified to permit business but restrain permanent construction.

Anand Basavavataray @ Basavantaray Sasanur Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 107313 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 107313 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANAND BASAVAVATARAY @ BASAVANTARAY SASANUR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: SASANUR PETROL BUNK, BUS-STAND ROAD, BAGALKOTE, PRESENTLY AT: WARD NO.10, BAGALKOTE.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SURESH S. SHETTEMMANAVAR ,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SURESHBABU S/O MAHANTAPPA NIDAGUNDI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: TRADE AND PARTNER OF M/S M.C. NIDAGUNDI & SONS, A DEALER OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. TP NO.35, WARD NO.10, BELAGAUM-RAICHUR ROAD, BAGALKOTE, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶13

VINAYAKA B V Digitally signedby VINAYAKA B VLocation:DharwadDate: 2022.06.0910:28:20 +0530

¶14

SMT.AKKAMAHADEVI W/O SURESHBABU NIDAGUNDI, PARTNER OF M/S. M.C. NIDAGUNDI & SONS, A DEALER OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BAGALKOTE, PRESENTLY @ WARD NO.10, BELAGAUM-RAICHUR ROAD, BAGALKOTE, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶15

BASAVARAJ S/O SURESHBABU NIDAGUNDI, PARTNER OF M/S. M.C. NIDAGUNDI & SONS, A DEALER OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: TRADE, R/O: BAGALKOTE, PRESENTLY @ WARD NO.10, BELAGAUM-RAICHUR ROAD, BAGALKOTE,DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶16

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S B HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3)

¶17

¶18

WP No. 107313 of 2018

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:10.10.2018 IN M.A.NO.6/2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT VIDE ANNEXURE-"K" & ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶23

The petitioner who is the plaintiff before the trial Court in O.S. No. 265/2014 and the respondent in M.A. No. 6/2018 is before this Court aggrieved by the impugned order 10.10.2018 passed by the first appellate Court in M.A. No. 6/2018.

¶24

The petitioner claims to be the landlord of the suit schedule property and contends that the respondents are tenants under the petitioner. The respondents do not dispute the fact that they are tenants under the petitioners. However, the petitioner herein filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction directing the respondents herein not to put up any construction on the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court allowed the application. However, the respondents preferred an appeal challenging the order of the trial Court in M.A. No. 6/2018. The appellate Court,

¶25

¶26

WP No. 107313 of 2018

¶27

vide the impugned order dated 10.10.2018 set aside the order of the trial Court and rejected the I.A. filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Challenging the same the petitioners are before this Court.

¶28

During the course of these proceedings this Court, by order 20.11.2018 recorded the submission of the learned counsel that the respondents-lessees would undertake not to put up any permanent construction in the suit schedule property. Further, in daily order dated 12.12.2018, this Court while granting time to the respondents to file objections to I.A. No. 1/2018, directed the respondents not to do anything further in the suit schedule property and the respondent shall not start any business, till the next date of hearing.

¶29

Learned counsel Sri S.B. Hebballi appearing for the respondents would submit that on the basis of the said interim order, the petitioners have filed a contempt petition in CCC No. 100076/2020 complaining that the respondents have started a business and disobeyed the orders of this Court. Learned counsel would further submit that the prayer made by the petitioners/ plaintiffs in I.A. No. 5 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was to restrain the defendants from putting up any construction on the suit

¶30

¶31

WP No. 107313 of 2018

¶32

schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. Therefore, this Court could not have directed the respondents not to start any business in the suit schedule property. Therefore, this Court could not have directed the respondents not to start any business in the suit schedule property. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondents have obeyed the directions issued by this Court and the undertaking given by the learned counsel that the respondents will not put up any permanent structure on the suit schedule property during the pendency of these proceedings. Learned counsel submits that even the petitioners would admit that the respondents have not put up any permanent construction during the pendency of these proceedings. However, a temporary structure was put up which could be dismantled in no time and since the respondents are the lessees under the petitioner, they are entitled to use the property in accordance with the agreement entered into between the parties.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further join issues saying that the agreement would enable the respondents to use the premises only to run a petrol pump station.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 107313 of 2018

¶36

Nevertheless, after arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the petitioners would pray that the petition may be disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a prescribed time limit, since the suit was filed in the year 2014.

¶37

Learned counsel Sri S.B. Hebballi submits that the respondents are not averse to continuing the undertaking given before this Court that they shall not put up any permanent structure on the suit schedule property, however, respondents may be permitted to carry on the business.

¶38

Placing the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on record, the writ petition stands disposed of while directing the trial Court in O.S. No. 265/2014 to conclude the proceedings and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.

¶39

The interim orders passed by this Court shall stand modified while restraining the respondents not to put up any permanent structure on the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

¶40

¶41

WP No. 107313 of 2018

¶42

However, the respondents are permitted to carry on the business

¶43

as is being done now till disposal of the suit.

¶44

Any observation made during the course of this order shall not prejudice case of either of the parties before the trial Court.

¶45

All pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶46

SD JUDGE

¶47

BVV

Anand Basavavataray @ Basavantaray Sasanur v. Sureshbabu S/O Mahantappa Nidagundi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Basavavataray @ Basavantaray Sasanur v. Sureshbabu S/O Mahantappa Nidagundi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jain Agm Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Agm Homeopathic Medical College Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Mahadev S/O Bhimappa Jarale Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Kishor Krishnaji Pawar Vs the Chairman

Yallappa S/O Adiveppa Batakhani Vs Mallikarjunappa S/O Basappa Battur

Sri Shambhu Gouda Salamani S/O Rudragouda Salamani Vs the State of Karnataka