Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajamma vs Sri G Muniyappa @ Rukmangada, on 4 February, 2021
Author: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
HOUSE RENT REVISION PETITION No.75 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Smt. Rajamma
74 years
W/o late Narayanappa
R/a No.32, 2nd Floor,
8th Cross, S.R. Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
..PETITIONER
(By Sri Dinesh Gaonkar, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. G. Muniyappa
@ Rukmangada
aged 66 years,
S/o late Gangappa
R/a No.32, 1st Floor,
8th Cross, S.R. Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
..RESPONDENT
(By Sri Basavarajappa D.R., Advocate for C/R)
This House Rent Revision Petition is filed under Section
46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, praying to set aside the
Judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2017 passed in HRC
HRRP No.75/2017
2
No.13/2017 by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at
Bangalore (SCCH-1), and thereby dismiss the petition filed for
eviction by the respondent herein under Section 27(2)(r) of the
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 by allowing this revision petition, in
the interest of justice.
This House Rent Revision Petition coming on for Orders
along with I.As. 1/17, 2/17 and 3/17 through Physical
Hearing/Video Conferencing this day, the Court made the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner herein was the respondent in HRC
No.13/2017 in the Court of Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at
Bangalore (SCCH-1), wherein the present respondent as a
petitioner had sought for her eviction under Section 27(2)(r)
read with Explanation 1 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
2. After contest, by the Order dated 03.08.2017, the
said petition came to be allowed and the respondent therein
(petitioner herein) was directed to quit, vacate and deliver
vacant possession of the petition schedule premises within four
months from the date of the order. Challenging the said order,
the respondent therein has filed the present petition.
HRRP No.75/2017
3. There is a delay of 11 days in filing the present
petition. The respondent (landlord) as caveator in the matter is
being represented by his counsel.
The Office has also put up a note about improper
compliance of the deposit of alleged arrears of rent in a sum of
Rs.16,000/- in the matter.
4. Thus, when the matter was due for hearing regarding
the Office Note on I.A.1/2017 filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act and also two more interlocutory applications
bearing Nos.2/2017 and 3/2017, the respondent / Caveator on
11.12.2018 filed certified copy of the proceeding dated
06.01.2018 in Ex. No.1997/2017 in the Court of Small Causes at
Bengaluru (SCCH-1) which says that the said execution petition
stood closed as fully satisfied. The endorsement on the
presentation form shows that copy of the same was served to
the petitioner. Thereafter on 05.01.2021, learned counsel for
the respondent who was present physically in the Court
submitted that the impugned decree for eviction since has
already been executed and the respondent has taken back
possession of the schedule premises, the present revision
HRRP No.75/2017
petition does not survive for consideration. He submitted that he
would file necessary affidavit in that regard.
5. Thereafter the respondent herein has also filed his
sworn affidavit dated 13.01.2021 reiterating that he has taken
the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises under
execution No.1997/2017 on 03.01.2018. On 21.01.2021, since
the learned counsel for the petitioner was neither present
physically nor through video conference, this Court, after making
observation that the respondent contends that he has taken the
vacant possession of the premises in a process known to law, as
such, the present petition does not survive for consideration is to
be accepted after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to make
his submission, the matter was adjourned. However, it was
made clear that no further adjournment would be granted in the
matter.
6. Thus, today when the matter is listed, once again,
learned counsel for the petitioner is neither present physically
nor through video conference. Therefore, it is taken that the
petitioner has no say in accepting the affidavit filed by the
HRRP No.75/2017
respondent and also considering the documents produced by him
on 11.12.2018 as observed above.
7. A perusal of the said document which is the certified
copy of the proceedings in Execution No.1997/2017 (though in
the affidavit it is mentioned as Execution No.1999/2017), goes to
show that delivery warrant has been executed duly, as such, the
execution petition has stood closed. The sworn affidavit filed by
the respondent also reiterates the same and they have not been
denied or disputed from the petitioner's side. As such, the
contention of the respondent that the present petition does not
survive for consideration needs to be accepted.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as having
become infrutuous.
In view of disposal of the main appeal, pending I.As.1 to 3
of 2017 do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sac*
