Sri. Dheeraj Singh vs Sri. Sukesh Manjunath Prabhakar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4729 Kant

                             1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

               R.F.A.NO.1111 OF 2020 (RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. DHEERAJ SINGH
S/O O P SINGH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.99/104, 2ND FLOOR,
15TH CROSS, GAYATHRI DEVI PARK EXTENSION,
VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-560003.
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SIDDAPPA B M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. SUKESH MANJUNATH PRABHAKAR
S/O PRABHAKAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.22, OLD NO.515,
ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET,
V V PURAM, BANGALORE-560004.
                                              ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.SURYAPRAKASH RAO, ADVOCATE)


     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.10.2019 PASSED IN OS
NO.8625/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-60) DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
                                  2


    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

On 04.03.2022, the appellant/tenant made a statement

that he is willing to handover vacant possession provided he is

granted reasonable time to handover vacant possession. This

proposal was readily accepted by the respondent/landlord and

further the respondent/landlord also admitted that he is willing

to refund the lease amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on the day the

appellant/tenant hands over vacant possession. In terms of

the statements made by the rival parties, both

appellant/tenant as well as respondent/landlord have filed

their respective affidavits.

2. The appellant/tenant has given an undertaking by

way of affidavit duly sworn on 11.03.2022. The

appellant/tenant undertakes to handover vacant possession of

the suit schedule property on or before 31.08.2022. At

paragraph 3, he has also agreed to receive Rs.3,00,000/-

while handing over vacant possession to the

respondent/landlord. The respondent/landlord has also filed

an undertaking by way of an affidavit indicating that he will

repay the lease amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on the day

possession is handed over to the respondent/landlord.

3. Both the affidavits are taken on record. At this

juncture, learned counsel for the appellant/tenant submits that

if appellant/tenant hands over vacant possession much prior

to the scheduled time fixed by this Court, the

respondent/landlord shall forthwith pay the lease amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- on the day the appellant/tenant hands over

vacant possession.

4. This statement is also not seriously disputed by the

respondent/landlord and on instructions, learned counsel

would submit to this Court that if appellant/tenant delivers

vacant possession much prior to the scheduled time, his client

is willing to pay the lease amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.

5. With these observations, the appeal stands

disposed of. It is made clear that appellant/tenant shall not

seek any further extension of time.

The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not

survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA