Karnataka High Court
M/S Sifang Automation India Pvt ... vs Sri T M Rajakumar on 25 March, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.947/2021
BETWEEN:
M/S SIFANG AUTOMATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
COMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
SY. NO 26/1B2, KENCHENAHALLI
12TH KILOMETER T.M.
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
MYSORE ROAD, R R NAGAR ZONE
BENGALURU - 560 059
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO AND
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI SATISH S
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJAY KUMAR.A, ADV.)
AND:
SRI T M RAJAKUMAR
S/O LATE SRI T MARIYAPPA (HUF)
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO 281, 3RD MAIN, J P NAGAR,
3RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560078.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADV.)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF
CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.05.2021
2
PASSED IN OS.NO.6185/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT/
EVICTION.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR 'HEARING
ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION' THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellant files into the Court
Compromise Petition, which is signed by the parties and
counter signed by learned counsels.
2. Appellant and respondent are present.
Compromise Petition is preferred under Order XXIII Rule 3
of CPC, which reads as under:-
"APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
The Appellant and Respondent most respectfully
submits as follows:
1. The Appellant/Tenant undertakes to vacate and
Deliver Vacant Possession of the Premises (i.e. the
Suit Schedule Premises) on or before 24.03.2024
Voluntarily without driving the Respondent
/Landlord to file the Execution Petition and
undertakes to pay the monthly Rent regularly.
2. Further the Appellant agrees if he commits any
default in payment of Rent consecutively for 2
months, the Respondent / Landlord is at liberty to
Execute the decree and take possession of Suit
Scheduled Premises.
3. The Appellant further undertakes to increase the
Rent by 10% on the existing Rent of Rs.1,20,000/-
per month for two years i.e. till 24.03.2024 plus
GST.
4. The Appellant undertakes to deliver the vacant
possession of the Suit Scheduled Premises to the
Respondent/Landlord in Tenantable Condition and if
there are any damages the Appellant shall attend
to the same at their cost.
5. The Appellant has paid a sum of Rs.1,19,999/-
(Rupees One Lakh Nineteen Thousand Nine
Hundred & Ninety Nine Only) excess amount
towards rent at the time of rental arrears deposit.
As such, the said sum of Rs.1,19,999/- (Rupees
One Lakh Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred &
Ninety Nine Only) shall be deducted at the time of
rental deposit for the month of April, 2022.
6. The Respondent /Landlord submits that he has NO
OBJECTION to grant the time up to the end of
March,2024 [on or before 24.03.2024] subject to
the condition that the Appellant/Tenant pays the
rent every month as and when it falls due without
any default and if the Appellant commits default in
payment of the rent, the Respondent will have the
liberty to execute the Decree for Execution.
7. The Appellant undertakes that he will not seek
further extension of time under any circumstances
to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the
Suit Schedule Premises to the
Respondent/Landlord.
8. The Appellant further undertakes that it will not
sublet the schedule premises.
9. In view of the above settlement between the
parties, the parties have no claim against each
other in respect of the above case and the matter
stands amicably settled.
Under the circumstances the Parties to the above
appeal pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
modify the decree in terms of the above settlement, in
the Interest of Justice and Equity.
SUIT SCHEDULE PREMISES
All that part and parcel of the single floor building with
super built up area of about 4,000 sq.ft in a site area
of about 8,000 sq.ft in Sy.No.26/1B2, Kenchanahalli,
12th Kilometre, Mysore Road, T.M Industrial Estate,
BBMP Ward No.160, Katha No.100, PID No.160-WO-
10-6-7 and property bearing No.1626/26/1A2,
26/1B2, HBCS Ideal Homes Layout, R.R Nagar Zone,
Bengaluru-56- -59 with inclusive parking area,
car/commercial vehicle on the west and south of the
building and bounded on the
East by : Industrial building owned by the
owner
T.M Rajakumar (HUF)
West by : Bengaluru - Mysore State Highway
North by : ATM of Oriental Bank of Commerce
in Sy.NO.26/1B2
South by : Kenchenahalli Road
Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate For Appellant Appellant
Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate For Respondent Respondent
Place : Bengaluru
Date : 25.03.2022"
3. Admittedly, no title dispute is involved and
dispute involves a tenant and landlord relationship. The
appellant is the tenant and it is submitted that he is running
another unit in the adjoining premises, which is also owned
by the respondent and that the present premises is not
being utilized for the purpose for which it was let out and in
that view of the matter, the parties having negotiated have
arrived at a settlement on the above terms and learned
counsels pray that the appeal be disposed of in the above
terms by recording the undertaking of the appellant to quit
and deliver possession on or before 23.04.2022 and that he
would pay rents without fail and that he would deliver
possession without forcing the respondent to resort to
coercive steps for execution of the judgment.
4. The settlement between the parties is not
vitiated by any illegality. The settlement being voluntary,
valid and fair, there is no hindrance for the Court to record
the same. Accordingly, the Compromise Petition is taken on
record. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.
Office to draw decree accordingly and refund to the
appellant permissible Court Fee.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
dn/-
CT-HR
