Smt. Ningamma vs M. Narayana Swamy
2021 Latest Caselaw 5589 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5589 Kant
Judgement Date : 6 December, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Ningamma vs M. Narayana Swamy on 6 December, 2021

Bench: R. Nataraj

                             1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

               H.R.R.P. NO.6 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

SMT. NINGAMMA
W/O LATE J. PUTTASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT 1978/M,
MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD,
MANDI MOHALLA,
MYSURU-21.
SINCE DECEASED BY LRs.

1.    VITTAL
      S/O J.PUTTASWAMAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
      R/AT 1978/M,
      MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD,
      MANDI MOHALLA,
      MYSURU.

2.    GOWRI,
      D/O J.PUTTASWAMAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
      R/AT 211, DARASAGUPPE,
      SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK,
      MANDYA.

(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
 DATED 26.09.2019.)
                                  ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAHUL K. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. T.N.RAGHUPATHY, ADVOCATE)
                                2


AND:

M. NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O. LATE M.D. MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.60,
OM SHANTHI NILAYA,
VENKATAPPA LAYOUT,
NEAR NAGENDRA TEMPLE,
KONENA AGRAHARA,
HAL, BENGALURU-17
                                      ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VISHNU HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. LEX SCIENTIA
ASSTS.)

     THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 08.11.2016 PASSED IN RR.NO.03/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU,
DISMISSING THE RENT REVISION PETITION AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.06.2016 PASSED IN
HRC.NO.44/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE,
MYSURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.27(2) (a)
OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999.

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


                           ORDER

This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the

Code of Civil Procedure challenging the Order dated

16.06.2016 passed by the II Additional I Civil Judge,

Mysuru, (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court') in HRC

No.44/2014 which was confirmed in Revision in R.R.

No.3/2016 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Mysuru in terms of the judgment dated 08.11.2016.

2. After this petition was heard at length, the

parties have resolved to amicably settle the dispute and

have today filed a joint memo duly signed by the learned

counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the

respondent, the relevant terms of which are as follows:

"2. The petitioner has agreed to vacate the petition schedule premises on or before 30th of June, 2023 without fail.

3. Petitioner shall not seek any extension of time for vacating the premises.

4. From 1st of January, 2022, the petitioner shall pay to the respondent, rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month.

5. The petitioner has deposited in this Hon'ble Court rents at the rate of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty only) per month up to April, 2022. Petitioner shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month, after deducting the rents already deposited.

All the deposited rent receipts are hereby given to the respondent's counsel, who has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

6. If there is any default in payment of rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month for a consecutive period of 3 months, the respondent shall be entitled to take possession of the petition schedule premises in accordance with law.

7. The monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) shall become payable on or before 7th of every succeeding month.

8. Petitioner shall not sub-let the petition schedule property, make any alterations, improvements or carry out new construction in the petition schedule premises.

9. Petitioner shall vacate the petition schedule premises on or before 30th June, 2023 without forcing the respondent to seek remedy for eviction through recourse of law."

3. Mr. Kiran V., who is the son of Mr. Vittal,

petitioner No.1 herein, is present and the respondent is

present in person. They are identified by their respective

counsel. The son of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent

acknowledge that they have understood the terms of the

joint memo and in token of their acceptance of the terms,

have signed the order sheet of this Court.

4. In view of the joint memo filed by the parties,

this revision petition stands disposed off in terms of the

joint memo. The impugned Judgment and Order dated

16.06.2016 passed by the Trial Court in HRC No.44/2014

is upheld. However, time to vacate the petition schedule