Karnataka High Court
Smt. M. Manjula vs Dr.C.Parvathi on 30 October, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44323
RFA No. 2272 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2272 OF 2024 (EJE-)
BETWEEN:
SMT. M. MANJULA
DEALER OF IOC
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
W/O LATE MOHAN KUMAR,
PROPERTY BEARING, SY.NO.43/1,
KATHA NO.40, BYRASANDRA,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
AND R/AT NO.605/8,
Digitally signed by RAJAJINAGAR, 3RD BLOCK,
VEDAVATHI A K
Location: High
BANGALORE - 560 010.
Court of ...APPELLANT
Karnataka
(BY SRI. SUNDAR RAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. C.PARVATHI
D/O LATE M.CHINNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9/1, 2ND CROSS,
KARAGAPPA GARDEN, MISSION ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44323
RFA No. 2272 of 2024
SUBBIAH CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR RETAIL MANAGER,
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(RETAIL SALES),
HAVING SERVICE STATION AT
PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.43/1,
KATHA NO.40, BYRASANDRA,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
AND HAVING OFFICE AT
DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.29,
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN,
MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NARAYAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.07.2024
PASSED IN OS.NO.8543/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44323
RFA No. 2272 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal filed by the appellant/tenant under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside
the judgment and decree passed by the XXV Additional
City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in
O.S.No.8543/2019 dated 11.07.2024 by allowing the suit
of the plaintiff and directing the appellant/defendant to
quit and vacate the schedule premises within four months
from the date of its judgment.
2. The rank of the parties as per the Trial Court,
the appellant is the defendant No.1 and the respondent
No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 is the defendant
No.2.
3. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial court is
that, the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule premises
and the same was leased out to the defendant No.1 in the
year 2001 for a period of 15 years. Subsequently, there
was a modification in the lease for sublet to the 2nd
NC: 2024:KHC:44323
defendant. Subsequently, the lease was extended for
another 3 years. Thereafter, suit came to be decreed from
the Trial Court and directed the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to
quit and vacate the suit schedule premises.
4. During the pendency of the appeal, the
appellant appeared and filed an affidavit for undertaking to
vacate the premises, she requires another six months time
from today.
5. Though the respondent counsel objected for
granting of another six months time and prayed to grant
only three months.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances from
the view, the Judgment was pronounced on 11.07.2024 by
granting four months of time by the Trial court which
expires on 10.11.2024. Considering the facts and
circumstances where the appellant voluntarily undertakes
before the court for seeking some more time to vacate the
premises, only on the ground that fuel was sold on credit
basis to some customers and it has to recover from them
NC: 2024:KHC:44323
and for removing fixtures of the fuel station, and removing
of underground tankers, it may requires another six
months.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances and in
view of the undertaking given by the appellant, this court
feels to grant six months time from today to the appellant
to quit and vacate the suit premises.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in terms
of the affidavit filed by the appellant.
9. Another six months time is extended from
01.11.2024 to 30.05.2025. The appellant shall quit and
vacate the premises on or before 30.05.2025, failing which
the appellant shall pay the double rent as damages.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
SRK
CT:SK
