Karnataka High Court
Mr. Srinivas vs Mr Venkatesh on 10 March, 2023
Bench: R. Nataraj
-1-
CRP No. 506 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 506 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
MR. SRINIVAS,
S/O. RANGANATHA CHADAGA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
SHOP NO.72 (CORNER SHOP),
GANDHIBAZAR MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR B.N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. VENKATESH,
S/O. S. R. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.502, 7TH MAIN,
Digitally HANUMANTHANAGAR,
signed by BANGALROE - 560 019.
SUMA
Location:
HIGH 2. MR. V. RAMESH BABU,
COURT OF S/O. VSV SHETTY,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.812, 6TH MAIN,
BSK 1ST STAGE, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 50.
3. MRS. UMA RAMESH,
W/O. V. RAMESH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.812, 6TH MAIN,
RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK,
BSK 1ST STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 50.
-2-
CRP No. 506 of 2019
4. MR. V. SUHAS,
S/O. M. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.502, 7TH MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 019.
5. SMT. NAGARATNA
@ NAGAMMA,
W/O. LATE RAMANNA CHADAGA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
PRESENT ADDRESS,
RESIDING AT NO.77, SUIMUKALAYA,
2ND MAIN, 1ST STAGE,
EAST ITI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEDACHALA M. V, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 AND R4;
R2 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UN-REPRESENTED)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL
CAUSES COURTS ACT 1964 FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 26.09.2019 PASSED IN SC NO 1264/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE VII ADDL.JUDGE AND ACMM, BENGALURU DECREEING
THE SUIT FOR EJECTION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the order dated
29.06.2019 passed by VII Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of
Small Causes, Bengaluru (Henceforth referred to as 'Trial
Court') in S.C.1264/2017, by which the petitioner was ejected
from the petition schedule premises.
CRP No. 506 of 2019
2. A proceeding was initiated by the respondents
herein for ejectment of the petitioner, contending that he was a
tenant under the respondents and that he failed to pay the rent
and had failed to vacate the premises even after a notice of
termination was served upon him.
3. During the pendency of proceedings and when the
case was listed for evidence of the petitioner, he filed an
application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC for returning the
plaint for re-presentation before the Court having jurisdiction,
on the ground that the suit premises was less than 14 Sq.mtrs
and therefore the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999
was alone applicable and a suit before the Small Causes Court
was not maintainable.
4. The Trial Court after holding that the respondents
had claimed the rent to be sum of Rs.4,000/- per month and
since the premises in question was a non-residential premises,
the Trial Court held that the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 was not
applicable and hence rejected the application filed by the
petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC and also decreed the
CRP No. 506 of 2019
suit filed by the respondents for ejectment of the petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the same the present petition is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Trial Court rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 10
of CPC in terms of the order dated 26.09.2019 and
contemporaneously disposed off the suit by the impugned
judgment. He submits that the Trial Court failed to give
adequate opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence.
6. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents
submit that the petitioner has failed to lead evidence though an
opportunity was granted by the Trial Court to do so. He further
contends that the rent in respect of the suit schedule property
was Rs.4,000/- per month and therefore, the provisions of the
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 was not applicable. He submits that
the Trial Court had given adequate opportunity to the petitioner
to represent the case, but yet the petitioner did not take
advantage of the same and therefore, the Trial Court had no
other option than to dispose off the suit based on the available
evidence.
CRP No. 506 of 2019
7. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel
for the respondents.
8. I have also perused the judgment of the Trial Court
as well as the records of the Trial Court.
9. The records disclose that the Trial Court had listed
the case for evidence of the petitioner/defendant therein on
27.08.2018. From that day, the case was adjourned to
18.09.2018, 26.09.2018, 12.10.2018, 02.11.2018, 17.11.2018,
03.12.2018, on which day the defendants evidence was taken
as Nil and the case was posted for arguments. On 09.12.2018
an application was filed by the defendant/petitioner herein for
an adjournment and the case stood adjourned on payment of
cost of Rs.300/- and the case was adjourned to 07.01.2019.
The case was thereafter adjourned to 18.01.2019, 22.01.2019,
25.01.2019, 29.01.2019, 06.02.2019, 11.02.2019, 21.02.2019
on which day the parties prayed that the case be referred to
Lok Adalat. Again the case was listed before the Court on
28.05.2019 and adjourned to 04.06.2019, 22.06.2019,
CRP No. 506 of 2019
25.06.2019, 11.07.2019, 17.07.2019, 25.07.2019, 26.07.2019,
31.07.2019. On 03.08.2019, the defendant filed an application
under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC and the case was adjourned
thereafter. Since, the Trial Court had already heard the plaintiff
on the main suit, it not only disposed off the application filed
under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC, but also decreed the suit. It is
therefore evident that the defendant did not contest the suit
diligently by adducing his evidence, despite innumerable
opportunities granted by the Trial Court. The defendant
therefore cannot claim that the Trial Court did not give him
adequate opportunity to lead his evidence. Be that as it may,
since the premises in question is commercial in nature and the
livelihood of the petitioner is dependant on it, and also since
the Trial Court even after treating the evidence of petitioner as
'Nil' on 03.12.2018 but granted an adjournment on
09.12.2018, this Court considers it appropriate to grant a final
opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence. This shall
however be subject to the condition that he shall deposit the
entire arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month from
the date of petition before the Trial Court till date. This would
CRP No. 506 of 2019
meet the ends of justice and also ensure that the defendant
does not protract the further proceedings.
In that view of the matter, this revision petition is
allowed. The impugned judgment dated 26.09.2019 passed by
the VII Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes,
Beangaluru in S.C.No.1264/2017 is set-aside. The case is
remitted back to the Trial Court, which shall record the
evidence of the defendant on 31.03.2023. It is open for the
respondents to cross-examine the defendant on the very same
day. This is however subject to the condition that the defendant
pays up the entire arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per
month from the date of petition before the Trial Court till date.
It is made clear, if the petitioner fails to deposit the rent as
mentioned above on 31.03.2023, the Trial Court shall not grant
any opportunity to the defendants to adduce evidence and the
Trial Court may dispose off the case in line with its judgment
which is impugned in this petition.
If the defendants pays the rent and leads the evidence on
31.03.2023, the Trial Court is requested to dispose off the
CRP No. 506 of 2019
proceedings within three months thereafter. The parties shall
appear before the Trial Court on 31.03.2023.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PK
