Karnataka High Court
Sri M.G. Chikkanna vs Smt S.N. Vijayalakshmi on 4 January, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:713
HRRP No. 108 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.108 OF 2014 (EVI)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M.G. CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.164/2,
1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS,
MARUTHI EXTENSION,
OPP. MALLESHWARAM RAILWAY STATION,
SRIRAMPURAM POST,
BANGALORE - 560 021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.N.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RAMYA D 1. SMT S.N. VIJAYALAKSHMI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA W/O V. VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2. SRI UMASHANKAR
S/O V. VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.94, 1ST CROSS,
SHANKAR NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 096.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:713
HRRP No. 108 of 2014
THIS HRRP IS FILED U/S 46(1) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT
R/W 115 OF CPC, FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 01.08.2014
PASSED IN H.R.C.111/2012 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED U/S 27(2)(h) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT AND
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S 27(2)(i) OF KARNATAKA
RENT ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-
tenant challenging the order dated 01.08.2014 passed in
HRC.No.111/2012 (Annexure-A) by the Chief Judge, Court
of Small Causes at Bangalore, thereby the trial Court has
decreed the suit directing the petitioner-tenant to quit,
vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule
premises to the respondents within a period of three
months.
2. Heard the arguments from both sides and
perused the records.
3. The petitioner is the tenant and
respondents are the owner of the schedule premises. The
NC: 2024:KHC:713
relationship between the parties as tenant and owners is
not disputed. The trial Court, after considering the fact
that the respondents required possession of the schedule
premises for the purpose of demolition and rebuilding of
the schedule premises, accordingly, allowed the petition.
The trial Court after considering the evidence on record
that the respondents required possession of the schedule
premises for the purposes pleaded by the respondents,
which needs no interference of this Court. Hence, I do not
see any merit to interfere with the order under challenge.
Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. However, the petitioner-tenant is given
nine months time to vacate and handover possession of
the schedule premises to the respondents from today. The
petitioner-tenant shall file undertaking affidavit in this
regard to this Court within a period of one month from
today. Till the date of handing over of possession of the
schedule premises, the petitioner-tenant shall pay the rent
NC: 2024:KHC:713
as prevailed as on today every month without fail to the
respondents.
5. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. The impugned order dated 01.08.2014 passed
in HRC.No.111/2012 (Annexure-A) by the Chief
Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore, is
hereby confirmed.
iii. No order as to costs.
iv. The petitioner-tenant is given nine months time
to vacate and handover possession of the
schedule premises to the respondents from
today.
v. The petitioner-tenant shall file undertaking
affidavit in this regard to this Court within a
NC: 2024:KHC:713
period of one month from today. Till the date of
handing over of possession of the schedule
premises, the petitioner-tenant shall pay the
rent as prevailed as on today on every month
without fail to the respondents.
vi. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along
with copy of this order to the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PB
