Karnataka High Court
Sri M R Ramesh vs Sri P Sandeep Trichy on 1 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4777
CRP No. 5 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5 OF 2024 (SC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M.R. RAMESH
S/O M.V. RADHAKRISHNA GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
MADHAVA JEWELLERY MART,
SHOP UNIT NO.241 (OLD NO.386/30),
GROUND FLOOR, 5TH BLOCK,
RAJA MARKET, AVENUE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK HARNAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.M. SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by V AND:
MANJUSHA
BAI 1. SRI P. SANDEEP TRICHY
Location:
High Court of S/O T.N. PRAKASH,
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
PROP: ORIGINAL BABY PRAKASH DIAMONDS,
R/AT NO.3005, TATVAM,
WATER TANK ROAD,
GIRINAGAR 4TH PHASE,
NEAR KATRIGUPPE WATER TANK,
BANGALORE-560 085.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ARUN GOVINDRAJ &
SRI SHARATH S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4777
CRP No. 5 of 2024
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
SMALL CAUSES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT &
DECREE PASSED IN S.C. NO.1596/2019 BY THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, ON DATED
11.10.2023 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO GRANT ANY RELIEF
OR RELIEFS AS THE COURT MAY DEEM IFT AND PROPER
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2023 passed in
S.C.No.1596/2019 by the I Additional Small Causes Judge
& MACT, Bengaluru, the defendant therein has filed this
petition.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the tenant and the
respondent is the landlord. Respondent purchased the
property in the year 2018 to expand his business as he is
also the owner of the adjoining shop. After issuing notice
in accordance with law, the respondent had preferred
S.CNo.1596/2019. After trial, based on the evidence
let-in, the trial Court has passed the following:-
NC: 2024:KHC:4777
ORDER
"The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part
with cost.
The defendant is hereby directed to quit
and vacate the suit schedule property and hand
over the vacant possession of suit schedule
premises to the plaintiff within three months
from the date of this order. Failing which the
plaintiff at liberty to proceed with due process of
law.
As far as damages are concerned there
shall be separate enquiry as contemplated under
Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC.
Draw decree accordingly."
3. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant therein has
preferred this petition.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he is in jewellery
business and he has occupied the premises from nearly 40
years and evicting from the same will result in him not
having place to run his business. But the same cannot be
a ground for setting aside the well reasoned order of the
NC: 2024:KHC:4777
trial Court. The petitioner is unable to point out any error
in the order passed by the trial Court. In the course of the
arguments, the petitioner submitted that if reasonable
period of five years is given to him to vacate the suit
schedule property, he would vacate the same. However,
the learned counsel for the respondent upon instructions
submits that he is willing to grant two years time to the
petitioner to vacate the suit schedule property, which I
think is reasonable. Hence, the following:-
ORDER
i. The petitioner is directed to quit and hand
over the vacant possession of the suit premises
to the respondent within a period of two years
from today, subject to payment of rents that has
been agreed upon.
ii. The order passed in S.C.No.1596/2019 by the
I Additional Small Causes Judge & MACT,
Bengaluru, stands modified to that extent.
iii. The Civil Revision petition is accordingly,
disposed of.
NC: 2024:KHC:4777
iv. Pending interlocutory applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
