Disposed

Smt Dhanalaxmi v. Cuddapah Sri Paramahamsa Sachidananda Yogeeshwar'S Mathalayam Trust Regd.

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2023CRP/580/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a civil revision petition by accepting the undertaking of the petitioner to vacate the suit property within one year, pay agreed rent, and maintain the premises in habitable condition without subletting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to vacate suit property within one year, pay rent, and maintain the premises.

Smt Dhanalaxmi Vs Cuddapah Sri Paramahamsa… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43083 CRP No. 580 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 580 OF 2022 (SC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. DHANALAXMI W/O LATE SRI. KRISHNARAJU AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.19, 3^RD CROSS, RANASINGHPETE, POLICE ROAD, BANGALORE-560053 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER AND HER SON MR. SOMASHEKAR RAJU K., …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR A.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PARAMESWARAPPA C., ADVOCATE) AND: CUDDAPAH SRI PARAMAHAMSA SACHIDANANDA YOGEESHWAR'S MATHALAYAM TRUST REGD., (SRI RAJA RAJESHWARI SHIVALAYA AND SHIVAMURTHY TEMPLES) KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, Digitally BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR signed by SUMA BENGALURU-560023. Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND HIGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE COURT OF KARNATAKA MR. ARUN KUMAR …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. JYOTHI S.K., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2022 PASSED IN SC.NO.15040/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE V ASCJ AND 24^TH ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶8

¶9

NC: 2023:KHC:43083 CRP No. 580 of 2022

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 31.10.2022 and the decree dated 09.11.2022 passed by the V Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, in S.C.No.15040/2021 by which, the petitioner herein was directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property.

¶13

When this petition was listed for admission on 08.11.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if adequate time is granted, the petitioner would quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent agreed to grant one year time to the petitioner to quit and deliver the vacant possession. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent was recorded by this Court on 08.11.2023 and the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit undertaking to quit

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:43083 CRP No. 580 of 2022

¶16

and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent within one year.

¶17

Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the Power Attorney Holder of the petitioner, which reads as follows:-

¶18

"I, Somashekar Raju. K, S/o. V. Krishnaraju, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No.35, 3^rd Cross, Police Road, Ranasinghpet, Bangalore-560053, do hereby submit as follows:-

¶19

1. I state that, I am the attorney holder of the petitioner in the above revision petition and I know the facts of the case and hence I am swearing to this affidavit.

¶20

2. I state that, the petitioner is my mother. The petitioner has submitted before this Hon'ble Court that she will vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule property immediately by one year from the date of this affidavit. This Hon'ble Court has pleased to grant the time to the petitioner in accordance with her submission.

¶21

3. I state that, this Hon'ble Court has pleased to direct the petitioner to file the affidavit undertaking

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:43083 CRP No. 580 of 2022

¶24

to vacate the premises immediately by one year from today.

¶25

4. I state that I shall vacate the rented premises within one year from the date of this affidavit. I state that I shall pay the arrears of rent within 4 weeks from today.

¶26

5. I state that, the petitioner shall not seek extension of time in further to vacate the premises. During this period the petitioner shall pay the rent of Rs.230/- per month.

¶27

6. I state that the petitioner is hereby undertaking that she shall not damage and destroy the premises and would vacate the premises in habitable condition. I shall undertake to pay the electricity and water charges regularly as applicable till vacating the premises.

¶28

7. I state that I shall vacate the premises without forcing the respondent to file the execution petition to vacate me from the suit schedule property.

¶29

8. I state that I shall not sub-let or underlet or part with the possession of the schedule property to any person during this period."

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:43083 CRP No. 580 of 2022

¶32

In view of the aforesaid, this revision petition is disposed off in terms of the affidavit mentioned above. The petitioner is directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property within a period of one year from the date of the affidavit. She shall also pay the rent as agreed and shall not sublet or underlet any portion of the premises and shall not damage or destroy the premises and shall also pay the electricity and water charges as applicable.

¶33

In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As., if

¶34

any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand rejected.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

PMR

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Smt Dhanalaxmi v. Cuddapah Sri Paramahamsa Sachidananda Yogeeshwar'S Mathalayam Trust Regd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Dhanalaxmi v. Cuddapah Sri Paramahamsa Sachidananda Yogeeshwar'S Mathalayam Trust Regd.

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

The Commissioner Vs Rajashekar C

Prashant Kumar S Vs State of Karnataka

Rajesh G Vs Smt Impana Naik K

Sandhya Realtors Private Limited Vs the State by Marathalli Police Station

Smt. P.C. Rukmani Vs Namera K. Devaiah

Sri. Mallikarjunaiah Vs Smt. S.Chandrakala