Remanded

T. a. Shankarnarayana v. Smt.Janaki Dattatreya Khandke

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024HRRP/5/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A house rent revision petition was filed under Section 115 CPC against a rent revision dismissal. The High Court found the revisional court's order contained paragraphs copied wholesale from another petition's order, showing non-application of mind. It set aside that order and remitted the matter to the Principal District Judge, Udupi for fresh disposal on merits within a set timeframe.

What the court decided

AI extract

T. a. Shankarnarayana Vs Smt.Janaki Dattatreya Khandke — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36795 HRRP No. 5 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 5 OF 2019 (EVI)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T.A. SHANKARNARAYANA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE T. ANANDA, RESIDING AT D.NO. 13-2-11, COURT BACK ROAD, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT.JANAKI DATTATREYA KHANDKE (REPORTED TO BE DEAD AS ON 02.10.2009 ITSELF AND THE SAID FACT WAS BROUGHT BY MEANS OF MEMO DATED 25.06.2014 FILED BY THE 2ND AND 4TH RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE REVISIONAL COURT THROUGH THEIR ADVOCATE VIDE ANNEXURE A

¶14

DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.06.2019 PASSED BY THIS COURT .

¶15

SMT. SAROJINI HAZARI AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, W/O LATE DR. RANINDRA KISHAN HAZARI R/AT NO.8, MAHESHWAR NIKETAN 5B, PEDDAR ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 026.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:36795 HRRP No. 5 of 2019

¶18

SMT. DAYANIDHI RAMAKRISSNHA AMIN ( REPORTED TO BE DEAD AS ON 22.01.2012 ITSELF AND THE SAID FACT WAS BROUGHT BY MEANS OF MEMO THROUGH THEIR ADVOCATE IN THE REVISIONAL COURT ON 25.06.2014)

¶19

DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.06.2019 PASSED BY THIS COURT

¶20

MRS. ANUVA NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS W/O LATE SRI. NARAYAN NARAHARI RAO, R/AT NO.67, G.H. PATHARE BUILDING, GOREGAOKAR ROAD, GAMDEVI MUMBAI - 400 007.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R2 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER)

¶23

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2018 PASSED IN RENT REVISION PETITION NO.3/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, UDUPI, DISMISSING THE PETITION AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2013 PASSED IN RCA NO.16/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION UDUPI, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2) (O) AND (r) AND SECTION 31(a) AND (c) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:36795 HRRP No. 5 of 2019

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Heard Sri Sampath Anand Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.Pradeep, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶30

The order under revision is in respect of Rent Revision Petition No.3/2013 dated 6.12.2018 whereby the revision petition filed by the tenant came to be dismissed and RCA No.16/2006 was confirmed.

¶31

Before adverting to the merits of the matter, Sri.Sampath Anand Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of the Court that in the impugned order, paragraphs no.(17) to (37) pertain to some other revision petition i.e., in RRP No.8/2009 dated 12.8.2017 and submits that there is total non-application of mind on the part of learned Judge of the First Revisional Court and therefore, exercise of jurisdiction of this Court

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:36795 HRRP No. 5 of 2019

¶34

under Section 115 CPC is called for as there is error apparent on record.

¶35

In order to substantiate his contention, he has also placed before the Court the copy of the order in RRP.No.8/2009 dated 12.8.2017 which was between one Mr.N.B.Maben and Smt.Rajashree B Nayak .

¶36

This court perused the order under revision i.e., RRP No.3/2013 and that of the order passed in RRP No.8/2009. Paragraphs No.17 to 37 in the impugned order is nothing but a replica of paragraphs no.16 to 36 of RRP No.8/2009. Therefore, there is sufficient force in the argument putforth on behalf of revision petitioner that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the Revisional Court, may be due to inadvertence or otherwise. Fact remains is that, in the absence of discussion of the case on merits and only incorporation paragraphs no.17 to 36, which are paragraphs no.16 to 36 in RRP No.8/20009, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36795 HRRP No. 5 of 2019

¶38

deserves to be remitted to the First Appellate Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law. Taking note of

¶39

the developments that have taken place in respect of the petition property, it is also necessary for this Court to conclude the revision petition afresh in accordance with law in the time bound manner.

¶40

Accordingly, the following :

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The order passed by the First Revisional Court in RRP No.3/2013 dated 6.12.2018, impugned herein, is hereby set aside;

¶43

ii) Matter is remitted to the First Revisional Court i.e. the Court of the Principal District Judge, Udupi District, Udupi, for fresh disposal in accordance with law;

¶44

iii) Parties shall appear before the aforesaid court on 27.09.2024 without waiting for further notice;

¶45

iv) Thereafter, the first revisional court shall dispose of the matter after affording necessary

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:36795 HRRP No. 5 of 2019

¶48

opportunity to the parties afresh in accordance with law on or before 20.12.2024.

¶49

In view of the petition being disposed of, all pending I.A.s

¶50

and memos are assigned to records.

¶51

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶52

rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

T. a. Shankarnarayana v. Smt.Janaki Dattatreya Khandke

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

T. a. Shankarnarayana v. Smt.Janaki Dattatreya Khandke

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Joseph Francis Renson @ Renson Vs State of Karnataka

The Managing Director Vs Sri N Narayana

Smt. Kadamma Vs the Commissioner

Maruthi Education and Seva Trust(Regd) Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. Sudhananda B H Vs M.Anand Kumar

Ameerkhan Vs Sunkha Bovi