Disposed

Sri M C Vijay Kumar v. Sri Thomax Xavier

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2023RFA/98/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposed Regular First Appeal in a landlord-tenant eviction suit where parties amicably settled the dispute. The judgment accepted the compromise, modified the underlying decree, and directed the appellant to vacate premises by December 31, 2024, paying specific arrears.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed; earlier decree modified per compromise; appellant to pay Rs.11,01,675 as arrears and vacate premises by 31.12.2024.

Sri M C Vijay Kumar Vs Sri Thomax Xavier — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

RFA No. 98 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2022 (EJE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. M.C. VIJAY KUMAR S/O SRI. M. CHELLANAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR's

¶11

SMT. INDIRA W/O LATE. SRI. M.C. VIJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 7TH MAIN 80 FEET ROAD NEAR PATEL PUBLIC SCHOOL SUBBANA PALYA, BANASWADI BENGALURU-560 033. …APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by MALA K N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY MS. SUNITHA H SINGH., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. THOMAX XAVIER S/O SRI. XAVIER AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶16

SMT. POWLY THOMAS W/O THOMAX XAVIER AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶17

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.32/1 RAMAIAH LAYOUT 4TH CROSS

¶18

RFA No. 98 of 2022

¶19

¶20

KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 084. …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAMESH RAO K., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO. 1373/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION AND ARREARS OF RENT AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.1373/2014 against the judgment and decree

¶26

dated December 15, 2021 passed by I Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH No.2).

¶27

The suit is for ejectment and recovery of arrears of

¶28

rent and other reliefs; and it has been decreed.

¶29

Heard Ms.Sunitha H.Singh, learned advocate for the

¶30

appellant and Shri K Ramesh Rao, learned advocate for the respondents.

¶31

¶32

RFA No. 98 of 2022

¶33

Appellant Smt.Indira and respondents Shri Thomax

¶34

Xavier and Smt.Powly Thomas are present and they are identified by their respective advocates.

¶35

Learned advocates on both sides jointly submit that during the pendency of the appeal, parties have amicably resolved the dispute. A compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC duly signed by the appellant, respondents and their respective advocates has been filed. Parties admit that they have understood the terms of the compromise. They pray that this appeal be disposed of in

¶36

terms of settlement recorded in the compromise petition.

¶37

The terms of compromise read as follows:

¶38

"MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XXIII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, JOINTLY FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE RESOPONDENTS:

¶39

The Appellant and the Respondents in the above appeal most humbly begs to submit that:

¶40

1. The Appellant who is the defendant in O.S.No.1373/2014 before the Trial Court. He died during the pendency of the above suit. Thereafter, one Smt.Indira claiming as his Legal Representative came on

¶41

¶42

RFA No. 98 of 2022

¶43

record and proceeded with the suit. On hearing both the sides the trial court has decreed and also ordered for payment of arrears of rents and the damages and to vacate the premises.

¶44

2. The Appellant has filed the above appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree, dated 15-12-2021 passed in O.S.No.1373/2014. It is submitted at the intervention of the well wishers, family members and friends that the parties have settled the matter amicably.

¶45

3. The Appellant has requested for time till 31-122024 and the respondent has agreed to the same on the assurance by the appellant that she will vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises without fail and without any further extension, on or before 31-12-2024, and also will tender the balance arrears of rents and damages as decreed in the trial court.

¶46

4. The appellant has agreed that the future rents also will be paid within due date from time to time till December 2024, and will hand over vacant possession of the premises back to the Respondents/Land lords.

¶47

5. The appellant has tendered part of the arrears of rents to the Respondents, during the pendency of the appeal.

¶48

6. The appellant is liable to pay the sum of Rs.11,01675=00/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs One Thousand six hundred and seventy five only), which is as follows:-

¶49

RFA No. 98 of 2022

¶50

¶51

1. Rents From March 2019 to March 2023 at the rate of Rs.45,000 per months (48 months)	2,16,00,000=00
2. Damages as ordered by the trial court	1,25,000=00
Total	________________ 22,85,000=00
3. Amount paid by cheque Amount paid toward Taxes	10,00,000=00 1,83,325=00
	__________________ 11,83,325=00
Deduction	22,85,000=00 11,83,325=00
_____ Payable by Appellant	______________ Rs.11,01,675=00_

¶52

7. The Appellant has made the following payments by way of DD's for Rs. 11,01,675=00/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs One Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Five Only).

¶53

a) Rs.5,06,675/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Six Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Five Only) bearing No.000149, on dated 13.02.2023, drawn in Axis Bank, Kammanahalli Branch, in favour of the Respondent No.1.

¶54

b) Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Only), bearing DD No.000162, on dated 13.02.2023, drawn in Axis Bank, Kammanahalli Branch, in favour of the Respondent No.1.

¶55

c) Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Only) bearing DD No.000150, on dated 13.02.2023, drawn in Axis Bank, Kammanahalli Branch, in favour of the Respondent No.1.

¶56

¶57

RFA No. 98 of 2022

¶58

d) Rs.3,35,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Only), bearing D.D.No.851677, on dated 21.03.2023, drawn in Yes Bank, Kammanahalli Branch, in favour of the Respondent No.1.

¶59

e) Rs.1,70,000=00/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand Only), bearing D.D.No.071369, on dated 24.03.2023, drawn in Axis Bank, Kalyan Nagar Branch, in favour of the Respondent No.1.

¶60

8. It is submitted that, with reference to the above clauses, payments, the Appellant has agreed to pay on time rents from time to time and also agrees and volunteered to VACCATE and HAND OVER VACANT POSSESSION OF THE DEMISED RENTED PREMISES to the Respondents, ON OR BEFORE 31.12.2024, without seeking any extension of time.

¶61

9. The Respondents on the assurances made by the Appellant have agreed to grant her time till 31.12.2024, subject to compliance of the assurances made.

¶62

10. The parties on enquiry submit that there is no force or coercion by any one on execution of this compromise petition and they would abide by the conditions of the compromise petition entered as on today and affixed their signatures to the compromise petition without any force, coercion or threat fro whomsoever.

¶63

11. They also categorically admit and undertake that they shall not take further time in vacating the schedule

¶64

¶65

RFA No. 98 of 2022

¶66

premises which is regard between them to be vacated on or before 31.12.2024.

¶67

12. The Respondent has undertaken to refund the security deposit of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) paid by the appellant at the time of vacating the schedule premises.

¶68

13. This compromise petition again would be subject to the outcome and result of the bankers cheques issued in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and other terms and conditions agreed to by the parties to the compromise petition.

¶69

14. Both the parties mutually compromised and filed this Petition before this Hon'ble Court, and signed in the presence of the respective counsels, and are physically present before this Hon'ble Court, by agreeing the terms of this Compromise petition.

¶70

15. The appellant most respectively prays that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the office to refund full court fee to the appellant in accordance with court.

¶71

16. The terms of settlement reached and read as stated above shall be final and conclusive and the same are binding on both the parties..

¶72

WHEREFORE, the Appellant and the Respondent most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to record the above terms of settlement in terms of compromise petition and in the interest of justice and equity."

¶73

¶74

RFA No. 98 of 2022

¶75

In our opinion, compromise arrived at between the

¶76

parties is lawful and hence accepted. Judgment and decree dated December 15, 2021 passed by I Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH No.2) in O.S.No.1373/2014 shall stand modified in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties and this appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶77

Decree shall be drawn accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs.

¶78

Registry shall refund the court fee in accordance with law.

¶79

In view of disposal of this appeal, all pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration

¶80

and they stand disposed of .

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

KNM/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri M C Vijay Kumar v. Sri Thomax Xavier

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M C Vijay Kumar v. Sri Thomax Xavier

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 Sri. Siddarama

National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/S Coromandel Sugars Ltd. Vs the Principal Secretary

Apple India Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Infosys Ltd.

Smt S Mangalagowramma Vs Mr.Basavaraj