Karnataka High Court
Smt. V B Kala vs Sri. Ramulu Sannidhi on 26 July, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25941
CRP No. 201 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 201 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. V.B. KALA W/O SRI. G.V. BABU,
AGE: 59 YEARS, R/A NO.HOUSE NO.25,
VEERAPILLAI STREET,
SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
SMT. PREETHI W/O GIRIPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O SAME ADDRESS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. RAMULU SANNIDHI,
NO.115, DHARMARAJA KOLI STREET,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T BENGALURU - 1,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA YAJAMANA DHARMAKARTHA
SRI. GADI R PARTHASARTHY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M D RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA
SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 24.02.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.15238/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM,
BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25941
CRP No. 201 of 2018
ORDER
This matter is listed for admission and heard the
learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel
for the caveator/respondent.
2. In this revision petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 24.02.2018, decreeing the suit in
S.C.No.15238/2016.
3. The trial Court having considered the admission
made in the written statement, which has been extracted at
Paragraph No.9 of the judgment and also the admission
elicited from the mouth of DW.1, who is daughter of
defendant, in the cross-examination that on the date of
receiving quit notice, they were using the schedule premises
as a hotel and further admitted that they continued the hotel
business in schedule premises. Therefore, the trial Court
comes to the conclusion that there exists of jural relationship
between the parties and also comes to the conclusion that
the premises was used for running hotel without the consent
of the plaintiff-respondent and same is discussed at
NC: 2023:KHC:25941
CRP No. 201 of 2018
Paragraph No.14 of the judgment. The trial Court also in
Paragraph No.15 discussed that nothing has been elicited
from the mouth of PW.1 regarding conversion of premises for
commercial purpose with consent and having taken note of
the material available on record, the trial Court decreed the
suit and directed the defendant to quit and vacate the
schedule premises within two months and also made an
observation that plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the rent
from the defendant until delivery of the vacant possession of
the suit schedule premises.
4. The very contention of the petitioner's counsel
before this Court is that the matter needs to be remanded to
the trial Court for consideration and by mistake it was
mentioned that the petitioner was a tenant but she is the
owner of the premises. The said contention cannot be
accepted as in the written statement as well as in the cross-
examination, categorically admitted by the daughter-DW.1 of
defendant that her mother was tenant and also categorically
admitted that schedule premises was used for the hotel
business and running hotel. When such being the case, I do
NC: 2023:KHC:25941
CRP No. 201 of 2018
not find any grounds to admit the revision petition. Hence,
the petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2019 is
also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMJ
