Karnataka High Court
Mr. Jeevan vs Smt. Laxmamma on 17 August, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:29254
RSA No. 1439 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1439 OF 2023 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. JEEVAN
S/O. VASANTH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.3-237(10A)
OPP. RAJARAJESHWARI TEMPLE,
KUTTAR, MUNNUR VILLAGE,
MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT-575 017.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LAXMAMMA
Digitally signed
W/O. LATE SIDDALINGAIAH,
by SHARANYA T AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/AT SIDDALINGESHWARA NILAYA,
COURT OF NEAR RAJARAJESHWARI TEMPLE,
KARNATAKA KUTTARPADAVU, MANGALURU,
D.K.DISTRICT - 575 017.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAKESH KINI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.06.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.132/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU,
D.K, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:29254
RSA No. 1439 of 2023
NO.671/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,
MANGALURU, D.K.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the
learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
Caveator-respondent.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
decree dated 26.06.2023 passed in R.A.No.132/2019 on the file
of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, D.K,
dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree
dated 04.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.671/2015 on the file of the
Principal Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently
contend that the son of the respondent had executed a rental
agreement subsequent to filing of the suit and there is a
dispute among the family members with regard to the title is
concerned and there is no valid termination of tenancy.
4. Learned counsel for the Caveator-respondent would
submit that suit was filed in 2015 and the alleged document
NC: 2023:KHC:29254
RSA No. 1439 of 2023
came into existence in 2016 and already execution is filed and
also sought for the police protection to execute the decree.
The Trial Court also passed the judgment in the suit and the
First Appellate Court confirmed the same and there are no
substantial question of law to frame in this appeal.
5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellant and learned counsel for the Caveator-
respondent, when this Court was about to dictate the
judgment, at this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that without considering the matter on merits, if
two years' time is granted, the appellant would undertake to
file an affidavit and vacate the premises.
6. Learned counsel for the Caveator-respondent would
submit that the respondent is making efforts to get the
premises from the last 8 years and grant of two years time is
not reasonable and this Court can grant only three months time
to vacate the premises.
7. In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for
the Caveator-respondent, learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that premises is measuring only 200 sq.ft. and
NC: 2023:KHC:29254
RSA No. 1439 of 2023
the appellant is paying rent of Rs.3,000/- per month and eking
out his livelihood by doing business in the said shop and the
Court has to exercise the discretion magnanimously taking note
of the said fact into consideration. Learned counsel for the
appellant also submits that by enhancing little higher rent,
reasonable time may be granted and the learned counsel for
the Caveator-respondent also agreed to consider little more
time on enhancement of rent.
8. Having taken note of the submissions of the
respective counsels and since the appellant is doing business
and almost 8 years have elapsed to get the fruits of the decree,
it is appropriate to grant one year time to the appellant to
vacate the premises, subject to payment of double the monthly
rent i.e., Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/- per month
from the date of this order. The appellant shall file an affidavit
before the Court within one week from today that he would pay
the rent of Rs.6,000/- per month without committing any
default in advance every month and if the appellant commits
default in payment of rent for one month, the Caveator-
respondent is at liberty to seek for an order of possession
forthwith and it is also made clear that no further time would
NC: 2023:KHC:29254
RSA No. 1439 of 2023
be granted to vacate the premises. The Caveator-respondent
is directed to furnish the details of the bank account before the
Executing Court to enable the appellant to deposit the amount
in advance every month.
9. Learned counsel for the Caveator-respondent
submits that the appellant has not paid the rent from the year
2015 i.e., from the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the
appellant is directed to deposit the entire arrears of rent within
15 days from today as directed by the Trial Court to the bank
account to be furnished before the Executing Court and file
affidavit within one week as undertaken.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
