Karnataka High Court
Jammatraj S/O Vijjaji Jain vs Kulsum W/O Iliyas Danebhag on 22 February, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
R.S.A.NO.100105/2022 (POS)
BETWEEN
JAMMATRAJ S/O VIJJAJI JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O BANKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST; HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. ILLIYAS S/O MOHAMMEDGOUSE DANEBHAG,
R/O BANKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON,
(DEAD BY HIS LRS.)
1(A) KULSUM W/O ILIYAS DANEBHAG,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O MOMINGALLI, BANKAPUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
1(B) IBRAN S/O ILIYAS DANEBHAG,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MOMINGALLI, BANKAPUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
1(C) TADASUM D/O ILIYAS DANEBHAG,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O MOMINGALLI, BANKAPUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
1(D) SAJIYA D/O ILIYAS DANEBHAG,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O MOMINGALLI, BANKAPUR,
2
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
1(E) BURHAN S/O ILIYAS DANEBHAG,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MOMINGALLI, BANKAPUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
1(F) IRFAN S/O ILIYAS DANEBHAG,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MOMINGALLI, BANKAPUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
2. JAMEEL AHMED S/O MOHAMMEDGOUSE DANEBHAG,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MOMINGALLI, BANKAPUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
3. FAIZ AHMED S/O MOHAMMEDGOUSE DANEBHAG,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MOMINGALLI, BANKAPUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
4. RAEESAHMED S/O MOHAMMEDGOUSE DANEBHAG,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MOMINGALLI, BANKAPUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
5. MOHAMMED KHASIM S/O MOHAMMEDGOUSE DANEBHAG,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MOMINGALLI, BANKAPUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
6. SAJID AHMED S/O MOHAMMEDGOUSE DANEBHAG,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MOMINGALLI, BANKAPUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.L.PATIL, ADV. FOR R.2 TO R.6)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING THIS COURT TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 07.05.2020 PASSED
IN R.A.NO.98/2010 BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 18.06.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.21/2007 BY THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
3
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
: JUDGMENT :
In terms of the order dated 10.02.2022, the
appellant-tenant has filed undertaking in the form of
affidavit. At paragraph No.3 of the affidavit, he has
undertaken that he will vacate and handover the
vacant possession of the premises on or before
10.08.2022. He also undertaken that he will pay the
increased rent of Rs.2,000/- per month.
2. The said affidavit is taken on record.
3. In the affidavit, the appellant was also
required to give further undertaking that he will not
seek further extension of time and he would vacate on
or before 10.08.2022. The said undertaking is not
found in the affidavit. Therefore, the appellant is also
directed to file additional undertaking in the form of
affidavit undertaking that he will not seek any further
extension of time.
4. The appellant has already paid arrears of
rent of Rs.24,492/- by paying cash of Rs.25,500/- in
the open Court to the respondent-landlord on
17.02.2022.
5. In that view of the matter, the appeal is
disposed of granting time to the appellant to hand
over vacant possession on or before 10.08.2022. The
appellant shall file additional/supplement undertaking
within a period of one week.
Sd/-
JUDGE
EM
