Dismissed

Sri.N. Parashuram v. Sri. Srinivasa Murthy

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2024HRRP/1/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed the tenant's revision petition challenging eviction under Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, finding no legal infirmity in lower courts' orders. The court granted the landlord time to vacate premises and ordered payment of arrears.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; time granted to vacate premises by 31.08.2025; undertaking for arrears payment ordered.

Sri.N. Parashuram Vs Sri. Srinivasa Murthy — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32315 HRRP No. 1 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION No.1 OF 2024 (EVI)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI.N. PARASHURAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O NAGAPPA EDITOR SOCRATIES NEWS PAPER NO.1466, (NEW No.D31/A D 31/B, D31/C) NARAYANASWAMY ROAD, DEVARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU-570001

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI S N BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

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

¶11

SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS S/O A.T. VENKATACHALA SHETTY NO.6851, BAYWOOD DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -92646 REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER RAVI S/O DR. R.S.K. MURTHY BENGALURU

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI SHIVANANDA.R FOR SRI P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATES)

¶14

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2023 PASSED IN REV.RENT.No.6/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:32315 HRRP No. 1 of 2024

¶17

RENT REVISION PETITION AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2023 PASSED IN HRC No.25/2013 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL C.J AND JMFC, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(a)(h)(o)(r) AND SEC.31(c) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri S.N.Bhat, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Shivananda for Sri P.Nataraju, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

Tenant is in second revision challenging the order passed in HRC No.25/2013 dated 07.06.2023 on the file of the IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, confirmed in Revision Rent No.6/2023 dated 01.12.2023 on the file of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru.

¶23

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of present revision petition are as under:

¶24

Respondent herein filed a petition under Section 27(2)(a)(h)(o)(r) and Section 31 (c) of the Karnataka Rent Act,

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32315 HRRP No. 1 of 2024

¶26

1999 for evicting the revision petitioner from the petition premises.

¶27

The revision petitioner was conducting commercial activity in the petition schedule premises in the name and style ‘Sacraties Crime News Paper’. Petition filed by the respondent was duly contested. After thorough contest, the learned Trial Judge allowed the petition as prayed for and directed to hand over the petition premises to the respondent herein, within 45 days from 07.06.2023.

¶28

Thereafter, revision petitioner filed a Revision Rent before

¶29

the District Court, Mysuru, in Rent Revision No.6/2023. The learned Judge in the First Revisional Court after securing the records, heard the parties in detail and found that the Order of eviction passed by the learned Trial Judge is just and proper having regard to the principles of law enunciated in the following decisions:

¶30

(i) Karam Singh Sobti and another vs. Sri Pratap Chand and another reported in AIR 1964 SC 1305.

¶31

(ii) M/s Bhawanidas Ramdas and Sons vs. Smt.M.P. Namratha, reported in (2016)4 AKR 135.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32315 HRRP No. 1 of 2024

¶33

(iii) S.Shashidhar Rao vs. M.Vishwanath and others reported in 2006(4) KLJ 185.

¶34

(iv) T.P.Lakshmi Narasamma vs. Rajalakshmi and another reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3835.

¶35

(v) P.J.Surendranath vs. S.P.Pandurangan reported in ILR 2003 KAR 2965.

¶36

Accordingly, the learned Judge in the First Revision Court dismissed the Revision Petition by the Order dated 01.12.2023. Therefore, tenant/revision petitioner is before this Court.

¶37

Sri S.N.Bhat, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that, both the Courts have not properly appreciated the scope and ambit of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 in its true perspective, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Sri Shivananda, supports the impugned judgments.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:32315 HRRP No. 1 of 2024

¶42

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that both the Courts have categorically recorded a finding that revision petitioner is the tenant in respect of petition premises and he was carrying on the business of news paper in the name and style ‘Sacraties Crime News Paper’ and rate of rent was Rs.450/- per month starting from first day of the month to last day of the month. Also there is a finding recorded by the Trial Court that there is arrears of rent.

¶43

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Judge allowed the petition.

¶44

Learned Judge in the First Revision Court in the light of the rival contentions of the parties, has categorically recorded that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that there existed the jural relationship between the parties and there was arrears of rent in respect of petition premises which has not been complied by the revision petitioner herein and dismissed the revision petition.

¶45

Having regard to the scope of the second revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court has to

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:32315 HRRP No. 1 of 2024

¶48

find out whether there is patent factual error in the impugned orders resulting in miscarriage of justice.

¶49

On re-appreciation of the material on record, especially, the Order of the First Revision Court, this Court does not find any such legal infirmity so as to exercise the revision power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶50

Suffice to say that each and every contention of the tenant has been addressed in detail in the light of the legal principles enunciated in various judicial pronouncements and confirmed the Order in the first revisional Court.

¶51

Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in any one of the grounds urged in the present revision petition.

¶52

17. Consequently, the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed .

¶55

(ii) However, taking note of the fact that revision petitioner needs some reasonable time to vacate and hand over the premises, time is granted till 31^st August 2025 to vacate and

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:32315 HRRP No. 1 of 2024

¶58

hand over the premises voluntarily, to the respondent.

¶59

(iii) In this regard, revision petitioner shall file an undertaking on or before 31^st August 2024 to pay the entire arrears of rent and continue to pay the rents as and when it accrues or in advance.

¶60

(iv) Revision Petitioner shall also undertake to hand over the vacant premises on or before 31^st August 2025 voluntarily without driving the respondent/landlord to further legal proceedings.

¶61

(v) Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the respondent/land lord under due identification.

¶62

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶63

kcm

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri.N. Parashuram v. Sri. Srinivasa Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.N. Parashuram v. Sri. Srinivasa Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. H. Nagarajappa Vs Sri. Kiran Kumar

M/S Annapurna Enterprises Vs M/S Capronics Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. Ambedkar Mission Education Vs Mrs. v. Sunitha Bai

Karigowda Vs Sri. Puttegowda

Smt Geethamma Vs the Asst Commissioner and Lao

T. S. Venkateshaiah Vs the Chief Secretary