Disposed

Smt. M. Manjula v. Dr.C.Parvathi

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2024RFA/2272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenant's first appeal against a decree for ejectment of a fuel-station premises. The appellant filed an affidavit undertaking to vacate, seeking six months to recover credit dues and remove fixtures. The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the affidavit, extending time to vacate till 30.05.2025 with double rent as damages thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed in terms of appellant's affidavit; six months' time (till 30.05.2025) granted to vacate, failing which double rent payable as damages.

Smt. M. Manjula Vs Dr.C.Parvathi — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44323 RFA No. 2272 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2272 OF 2024 (EJE-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. M. MANJULA DEALER OF IOC AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LATE MOHAN KUMAR, PROPERTY BEARING, SY.NO.43/1, KATHA NO.40, BYRASANDRA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶9

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

AND R/AT NO.605/8, RAJAJINAGAR, 3^RD BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. SUNDAR RAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

DR. C.PARVATHI D/O LATE M.CHINNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT NO.9/1, 2^ND CROSS, KARAGAPPA GARDEN, MISSION ROAD,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44323 RFA No. 2272 of 2024

¶16

SUBBIAH CIRCLE,

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶18

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR RETAIL MANAGER, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(RETAIL SALES), HAVING SERVICE STATION AT PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.43/1, KATHA NO.40, BYRASANDRA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶19

AND HAVING OFFICE AT DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.29, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARAYAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.07.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.8543/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:44323 RFA No. 2272 of 2024

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal filed by the appellant/tenant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the XXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.8543/2019 dated 11.07.2024 by allowing the suit of the plaintiff and directing the appellant/defendant to quit and vacate the schedule premises within four months from the date of its judgment.

¶28

The rank of the parties as per the Trial Court, the appellant is the defendant No.1 and the respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 is the defendant No.2.

¶29

The case of the plaintiff before the Trial court is that, the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule premises and the same was leased out to the defendant No.1 in the year 2001 for a period of 15 years. Subsequently, there was a modification in the lease for sublet to the 2^nd

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44323 RFA No. 2272 of 2024

¶31

defendant. Subsequently, the lease was extended for another 3 years. Thereafter, suit came to be decreed from the Trial Court and directed the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to quit and vacate the suit schedule premises.

¶32

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant appeared and filed an affidavit for undertaking to vacate the premises, she requires another six months time from today.

¶33

Though the respondent counsel objected for granting of another six months time and prayed to grant only three months.

¶34

Considering the facts and circumstances from the view, the Judgment was pronounced on 11.07.2024 by granting four months of time by the Trial court which expires on 10.11.2024. Considering the facts and circumstances where the appellant voluntarily undertakes before the court for seeking some more time to vacate the premises, only on the ground that fuel was sold on credit basis to some customers and it has to recover from them

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44323 RFA No. 2272 of 2024

¶36

and for removing fixtures of the fuel station, and removing of underground tankers, it may requires another six months.

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the undertaking given by the appellant, this court feels to grant six months time from today to the appellant to quit and vacate the suit premises.

¶38

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the affidavit filed by the appellant.

¶39

Another six months time is extended from 01.11.2024 to 30.05.2025. The appellant shall quit and vacate the premises on or before 30.05.2025, failing which the appellant shall pay the double rent as damages.

¶40

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶41

SRK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT:SK

Smt. M. Manjula v. Dr.C.Parvathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M. Manjula v. Dr.C.Parvathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Kempegowda. D. B. @ Kempa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Mahadevamma Vs Smt Gangamma

Sri Nipun Gupta Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Malathy Desikan Vs Smt. R Venkatalakshmamma

Prakash @ Neni Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Vinoda M M Vs Smt. Gayathri