Smt. Sangeetha Prabhakar Narvekar Vs Prabhakar Mahadev Amble

SMT. SANGEETHA PRABHAKAR NARVEKAR, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ASHWINI P. NARVEKAR, DG-1, LAVAKUSH KUTIR, EKADANTHA RESIDENCY, ANATOLY, ANGAOL, BELAGAVI-590006.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

PRABHAKAR MAHADEV AMBLE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. CTS NUMBER 1981/1 TO 3, GANAPATI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590008.

¶14

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶15

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.14 12:35:16 +0530

¶16

RAVINDRA MAHADEV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. CTS NUMBER 1981/1 TO 3, GANAPATI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590008.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI TO DISPOSE OF THE HRC NO.09/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-C BY FIXING THE TIME LIMIT OF THREE MONTH AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8433 WP No. 101755 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the

¶27

respondents as no adverse order is passed against the respondents, so also no specific claim is made against them, except for seeking expeditious disposal of the matter by the petitioner who is none other than the land lady in HRC proceedings in HRC No.9/2018.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of the property bearing CTS Nos. 1989/1, 1989/2, and 1989/3, situated at Ganapati Galli, Belagavi. It is submitted that she has filed a house rent petition before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises. Upon issuance of notice, the respondents/tenants are contesting the matter. This petition was filed seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises. The petitioner was 72 years old at the time of filing the

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8433 WP No. 101755 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

HRC proceedings and is currently 79 years old. She seeks eviction of the tenants in order to occupy the premises for her own personal use.

¶32

The trial Court has been proceeding with the

¶33

matter since 2018. The case is presently at the stage of cross-examination of PW1, and the petitioner has already examined herself. The respondent, after cross-examining the petitioner at length, has recalled her for the third time, which has been allowed by the trial Court. Under the circumstances, it is the grievance and agony of the petitioner who is in her advanced age to see the end of the litigation before the end of her life and the delay and adjournment is causing further agony, pain and anguish to the petitioner.

¶34

Section 42 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 prescribes the procedure for expeditious disposal of the cases filed under the Act. Section 42(3) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 reads as under:

¶35

“42. Procedure to be followed by the Court.-

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8433 WP No. 101755 of 2025

HC-KAR

(1) xxx

(2) xxx

(3) The Court shall not ordinarily allow more than three adjournments at the request of a party throughout the proceedings and in case it decides otherwise it shall record its reasons therefor and order to pay the other party reasonable cost of adjournment.”

¶42

6. Thereafter Section 42(7) of the Karnataka Rent

¶43

Act, 1999 reads as under:

¶44

“(7) Every application made to the Court shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the hearing and to dispose off the application within six months of it being filed.”

¶45

7. The purpose of enactment of the present Act of

¶46

1999 was to see speedy disposal of the cases rather than

¶47

the tenant dragging on the matter by denying the right of

¶48

the landlord from whom he has taken the premises as

¶49

lessee. When the Act contemplates not more than 3 adjournments, ordinarily, the Court should be circumspect

¶50

in granting adjournment to the respondent unless otherwise warranted, so also sub Section (7) of Section 42

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8433 WP No. 101755 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

contemplates that hearing shall be concluded and disposed

¶54

within six months from the date it being filed.

¶55

In the present case, the petition is filed in the year 2018, wherein we are in July 2025, substantial delay is already caused in disposal of this petition. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57