Karnataka High Court
T. A. Shankarnarayana vs Smt.Janaki Dattatreya Khandke on 9 September, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36795
HRRP No. 5 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 5 OF 2019 (EVI)
BETWEEN:
T.A. SHANKARNARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O LATE T. ANANDA,
RESIDING AT D.NO. 13-2-11,
COURT BACK ROAD,
UDUPI - 576 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.JANAKI DATTATREYA KHANDKE
(REPORTED TO BE DEAD AS ON 02.10.2009 ITSELF
AND THE SAID FACT WAS BROUGHT BY MEANS OF
Digitally
signed by MEMO DATED 25.06.2014 FILED BY THE 2ND AND
MALATESH 4TH RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE REVISIONAL COURT
KC THROUGH THEIR ADVOCATE VIDE ANNEXURE A
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.06.2019 PASSED
KARNATAKA BY THIS COURT .
1. SMT. SAROJINI HAZARI
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
W/O LATE DR. RANINDRA KISHAN HAZARI
R/AT NO.8, MAHESHWAR NIKETAN
5B, PEDDAR ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 026.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36795
HRRP No. 5 of 2019
SMT. DAYANIDHI RAMAKRISSNHA AMIN
( REPORTED TO BE DEAD AS ON 22.01.2012 ITSELF
AND THE SAID FACT WAS BROUGHT BY MEANS OF
MEMO THROUGH THEIR ADVOCATE IN THE
REVISIONAL COURT ON 25.06.2014)
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.06.2019 PASSED
BY THIS COURT
2. MRS. ANUVA NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
W/O LATE SRI. NARAYAN NARAHARI RAO,
R/AT NO.67, G.H. PATHARE BUILDING,
GOREGAOKAR ROAD, GAMDEVI
MUMBAI - 400 007.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
R2 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER)
THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2018
PASSED IN RENT REVISION PETITION NO.3/2013 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, UDUPI, DISMISSING THE
PETITION AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 30.01.2013 PASSED IN RCA NO.16/2006 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION UDUPI,
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2) (O)
AND (r) AND SECTION 31(a) AND (c) OF KARNATAKA RENT
ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36795
HRRP No. 5 of 2019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Sampath Anand Shetty, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri.S.Pradeep, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. The order under revision is in respect of Rent
Revision Petition No.3/2013 dated 6.12.2018 whereby the
revision petition filed by the tenant came to be dismissed
and RCA No.16/2006 was confirmed.
3. Before adverting to the merits of the matter,
Sri.Sampath Anand Shetty, learned counsel for the
petitioner brings to the notice of the Court that in the
impugned order, paragraphs no.(17) to (37) pertain to
some other revision petition i.e., in RRP No.8/2009 dated
12.8.2017 and submits that there is total non-application
of mind on the part of learned Judge of the First Revisional
Court and therefore, exercise of jurisdiction of this Court
NC: 2024:KHC:36795
under Section 115 CPC is called for as there is error
apparent on record.
4. In order to substantiate his contention, he has also
placed before the Court the copy of the order in
RRP.No.8/2009 dated 12.8.2017 which was between one
Mr.N.B.Maben and Smt.Rajashree B Nayak.
5. This court perused the order under revision i.e., RRP
No.3/2013 and that of the order passed in RRP No.8/2009.
Paragraphs No.17 to 37 in the impugned order is nothing
but a replica of paragraphs no.16 to 36 of RRP No.8/2009.
Therefore, there is sufficient force in the argument put-
forth on behalf of revision petitioner that there is total
non-application of mind on the part of the Revisional
Court, may be due to inadvertence or otherwise. Fact
remains is that, in the absence of discussion of the case on
merits and only incorporation paragraphs no.17 to 36,
which are paragraphs no.16 to 36 in RRP No.8/20009, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order
NC: 2024:KHC:36795
deserves to be remitted to the First Appellate Court for
disposal on merits in accordance with law. Taking note of
the developments that have taken place in respect of the
petition property, it is also necessary for this Court to
conclude the revision petition afresh in accordance with
law in the time bound manner.
6. Accordingly, the following :
ORDER
i) The order passed by the First Revisional Court
in RRP No.3/2013 dated 6.12.2018, impugned
herein, is hereby set aside;
ii) Matter is remitted to the First Revisional Court
i.e. the Court of the Principal District Judge, Udupi
District, Udupi, for fresh disposal in accordance
with law;
iii) Parties shall appear before the aforesaid court
on 27.09.2024 without waiting for further notice;
iv) Thereafter, the first revisional court shall
dispose of the matter after affording necessary
NC: 2024:KHC:36795
opportunity to the parties afresh in accordance
with law on or before 20.12.2024.
In view of the petition being disposed of, all pending I.A.s
and memos are assigned to records.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
rs
