Sri. R Prashanth vs Smt Rajeshwari M.R
2023 Latest Caselaw 3373 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                       NC: 2023:KHC:20758
                                                          CRP No. 253 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                            BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                           CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 253 OF 2023

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI. R. PRASHANTH
                         S/O. SMT. R. RAJESWARAI AND
                         SRI RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY,
                         AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                         SSMS MARKET
                         S.V.LANE, BBT STREET,
                         WARD NO.28, MAMULPET,
                         BENGALURU- 560 053.
                         ALSO AT SHOP NO.24/4,
                         SSMS MARKET, S.V.LANE,
                         BBT STREET, WARD No.28,
                         MAMULPET,
                         BENGALURU - 560 053.

Digitally signed         PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.5,
by SHARANYA T
                         FLAT NO.F1, 4TH CROSS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                 DWARAKANAGAR,
KARNATAKA                BENGALURU-560 085.
                                                             ...PETITIONER

                               (BY SRI RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.    SMT. RAJESHWARI M.R,
                         W/O. LATE M.MAHADEVAPRASAD,
                         AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
                         R/AT NO.127, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
                         4TH BLOCK, 4TH PHASE,
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2023:KHC:20758
                                                   CRP No. 253 of 2023




    BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
    BENGALURU-560 079.
                                                          ...RESPONDENT

      (BY SRI V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

     THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2023 PASSED IN
SC.NO.347/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR VACANT
POSSESSION.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                              ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision petition is filed challenging the

judgment and decree passed in S.C.No.347/2021 dated

01.02.2023, wherein the Trial Court decreed the suit and

directed the petitioner herein to vacate the premises within

three months from the date of the order.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff is

unable to move out of his house and as such, he has executed

the General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri B. Banumurthy

to conduct the case. It is his further case that, earlier, the

NC: 2023:KHC:20758 CRP No. 253 of 2023

mother of the defendant-Smt. R. Rajeshwari was tenant in the

suit schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- per

month. After her demise, the defendant has been in possession

of the suit schedule premises as a tenant. The defendant has

paid the rent up to 01.02.2020 and thereafter, not paid the

rent to the plaintiff and there is an outstanding arrears of rent

due to the plaintiff for a period of three months amounting to

Rs.16,500/-. The plaintiff requested for payment of rent but,

the defendant did not pay the same. It is also pleaded in the

plaint that, suit schedule premises is required to accommodate

the watchman and watchman is necessary to manage the

entire building. It is further contended that the provisions of

Karnataka Rent Act is not applicable to the facts of the case.

Hence, sought for an order to direct the defendant to quit and

vacate the suit schedule premises.

4. On service of summons, the petitioner-defendant

herein appeared and filed the written statement and admitted

that his mother had occupied the schedule premises as per rent

note dated 21.11.2006 and she has done her business in the

premises and later shop was occupied by him and he was

paying the rent regularly and there was no due up to

NC: 2023:KHC:20758 CRP No. 253 of 2023

December, 2020. It is contended that the plaintiff demanded

rent of Rs.11,000/- per month and asked to give some more

amount as additional advance but, not specified the quantum of

additional advance amount. However, the defendant has not

agreed for the demands of the plaintiff at the first instance

then, he had decided to enhance the rent from Rs.5,500/- per

month to Rs.9,000/- per month considering the present cost of

tax on the building. Hence, sought for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, comes

to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a case by

issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act

and allowed the petition. Hence, this revision petition is filed

before this Court.

6. While arguing the matter on merits, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner-defendant submits that, if time of

one year is granted to vacate the premises, he will pay the rent

of Rs.11,000/- per month, instead of Rs.9,000/- per month,

since he has to find out an alternative premises to do the

business.

NC: 2023:KHC:20758 CRP No. 253 of 2023

7. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit

that one year time cannot be granted and the Court can

consider the matter granting reasonable time and direct the

petitioner to quit and vacate the premises. The counsel also

would submit that, order was passed in the month of February,

2023 and still, the petitioner is in occupation and he has not

vacated the premises.

8. Having heard the respective counsel and the fact

that respondent herein also sought to vacate the suit schedule

premises to accommodate the watchman, since watchman is

necessary to manage the building and also considering the fact

that petition is filed in the year 2021, the material discloses

that the mother of the petitioner occupied the premises in the

year 2006 at the rate of rent of Rs.5,500/- per month. Now,

admittedly, the rate of rent is Rs.9,000/- per month. Having

taken note of the fact the proceedings was initiated in the year

2021 and now, we are in 2023, it is appropriate to grant one

year time, subject to the petitioner regularly paying the rent at

the rate of Rs.11,000/- per month without any default which

has been agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and

though the learned counsel for the respondent inclined to grant

NC: 2023:KHC:20758 CRP No. 253 of 2023

one year time, however, made the submission that, at the

same rate of rent, this Court can consider the reasonable time

of eight months to vacate the premises.

9. Having taken note of the said submission also, this

Court is of the opinion that one year time would be appropriate

having considered the factual aspects of the case and the fact

that premises was let out in the year 2006 and the proceedings

was initiated in the year 2021. Hence, one year time is granted

to the petitioner-defendant to vacate the premises, subject to

payment of rent at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per month regularly

without any default from 01.06.2023 to 30.05.2024. The

petitioner shall also file an affidavit undertaking that he would

pay the rent at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per month regularly and

would vacate the premises before 30.05.2024 without seeking

any further time within two weeks from today.

With the above observation, the petition stands

disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST