Dismissed

Sri M.G. Chikkanna v. Smt S.N. Vijayalakshmi

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2024HRRP/108/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a house rent revision petition challenging an order directing a tenant to vacate premises for reconstruction. The High Court upheld the trial court's order but granted the tenant nine months to vacate instead of the original three months, requiring continued rent payment.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; impugned order confirmed; tenant granted nine months to vacate; directed to pay rent and file undertaking.

Sri M.G. Chikkanna Vs Smt S.N. Vijayalakshmi — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:713 HRRP No. 108 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.108 OF 2014 (EVI)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M.G. CHIKKANNA S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.164/2, 1^ST FLOOR, 7^TH CROSS, MARUTHI EXTENSION, OPP. MALLESHWARAM RAILWAY STATION, SRIRAMPURAM POST, BANGALORE – 560 021.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. H.N.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by RAMYA D

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT S.N. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O V. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶16

SRI UMASHANKAR S/O V. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.94, 1^ST CROSS, SHANKAR NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 096.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. P.CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:713 HRRP No. 108 of 2014

¶21

THIS HRRP IS FILED U/S 46(1) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT R/W 115 OF CPC, FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 01.08.2014 PASSED IN H.R.C.111/2012 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S 27(2)(h) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT AND DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S 27(2)(i) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This revision petition is filed by the petitionertenant challenging the order dated 01.08.2014 passed in HRC.No.111/2012 (Annexure-A) by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore, thereby the trial Court has decreed the suit directing the petitioner-tenant to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the respondents within a period of three months.

¶25

Heard the arguments from both sides and

¶26

perused the records.

¶27

The petitioner is the tenant and

¶28

respondents are the owner of the schedule premises. The

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:713 HRRP No. 108 of 2014

¶30

relationship between the parties as tenant and owners is not disputed. The trial Court, after considering the fact that the respondents required possession of the schedule premises for the purpose of demolition and rebuilding of the schedule premises, accordingly, allowed the petition. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record that the respondents required possession of the schedule premises for the purposes pleaded by the respondents, which needs no interference of this Court. Hence, I do not see any merit to interfere with the order under challenge. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

However, the petitioner-tenant is given

¶32

nine months time to vacate and handover possession of the schedule premises to the respondents from today. The petitioner-tenant shall file undertaking affidavit in this regard to this Court within a period of one month from today. Till the date of handing over of possession of the schedule premises, the petitioner-tenant shall pay the rent

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:713 HRRP No. 108 of 2014

¶34

as prevailed as on today every month without fail to the respondents.

¶35

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

¶36

following

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. The appeal is dismissed . ii. The impugned order dated 01.08.2014 passed in HRC.No.111/2012 (Annexure-A) by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore, is hereby confirmed.

¶39

iii. No order as to costs.

¶40

iv. The petitioner-tenant is given nine months time to vacate and handover possession of the schedule premises to the respondents from today.

¶41

v. The petitioner-tenant shall file undertaking affidavit in this regard to this Court within a

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:713 HRRP No. 108 of 2014

¶43

period of one month from today. Till the date of handing over of possession of the schedule premises, the petitioner-tenant shall pay the rent as prevailed as on today on every month without fail to the respondents.

¶44

vi. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the trial Court.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri M.G. Chikkanna v. Smt S.N. Vijayalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M.G. Chikkanna v. Smt S.N. Vijayalakshmi

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

Srinivasachari Vs Mr. Ravi

Lokesh @ Siddaramu Vs Sushma

Sri. B. v. Lakshminarayana Vs Smt. Rassol Bi

Sri. a. Shanthappa Vs Smt. Prema Mary

Sri. Raju Vs Smt. Puttalakshmamma

M Manikya Vs K v Sathisha