Sri Achuthan vs M/S Olety Ramachandraiah Hostel
2021 Latest Caselaw 6411 Kant

                             1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.212 OF 2014 (SC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. ACHUTHAN,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

SRI.RAMACHANDRA NAIR,
S/O LAE K.ACHUTHAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
M/S.AIR WAY TAILORS,
NO.31, 438, OLETY BUILDING,
OLETY RAMACHANDRAIAH HOSTEL,
VISVESHWARAPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
                                            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.R.HARINATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     M/S. OLETY RAMACHANDRAIAHA HOSTEL,
       (A CHARITABALE TRUST CONSTITUTED
       UNDER A DEED OF TRUST
       DATED 25-3-1955),
       HAVING ITS OFFICE NO.438,
       OLETY BUILDING,
       VISHWESWARAPURAM CIRCLE,
       BANGALORE - 560 004.
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       MANAGING TRUSTEE.

2.     SRI.O.S.R GUPTA,
       S/O LATE SRI.O.V.SUBBAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
                                  2

3.   SRI.O.S.SURESH,
     S/O LATE O.V.SUBBAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

4.   SRI.O.S SATHISH,
     S/O LATE O.V.SUBBAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

5.   SRI.O.R. ASWATH,
     S/O SRI.O.S.R GUPTA,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

6.   SRI.O.S.SUDEENDRA KUMAR,
     S/O SRI.O.S.SATHISH,
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

     (ALL ARE RESIDING AT
     NO.78, NORTH ROAD,
     BASAVANAGUDI,
     BANGALORE - 560 004.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 18 OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES ACT 1964
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.4.2014
PASSED IN S.C.NO.1332/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL.
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, (SCCH 12),
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT, MESNE PROFITS.

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


                            ORDER

On 08.12.2020, learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that the petition does not survive for

consideration as the tenant has handed over the

possession of the premises.

2. It is seen from the order sheet that the

petitioner is consistently remained absent from

08.12.2020.

3. In view of the submission made on

08.12.2020, this revision petition is dismissed as having

become infructuous.

Sd/-

JUDGE NR/-