Karnataka High Court
Sri.Saleem vs Sri.Syed Yousuff on 4 August, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JQRNATAKR AT
nnran THIS run 4th may or Aucus? 2§§§IJ .
BEFORE MM»_: Vw' _
THE HON'BLE Mn.ausr:cE}Amanp a?fifiRgpp% f
n.u.n.v.lo.1£a(ééq§g:v:§ ~i=
: V,_a ,_ V x W
sax snnsxu
3/o svzn xanzznuaag s ._.f-
no.9/1, I FLOOR ("PG'RTI9N:; ,; " '
MILLER TANK aunn noAn,'j':
XAVERIAPPA Layout, .g» '_a_ ;i v
aAncALonn+5§a»o52. :1;:-,"~g,_ j' ... rutitionn
Advocate)
1. 1 an: $?Ea.§cu§vfs,"
Ks/0 LATE svxn,xaHwoo snnnn
Assn Anour%3e_i3Ans, HALE:
2.g~ saw nnntufinxfisn nscuu
*1 _V7Q'snI"s¥En'voUsuFr
=gssu_§7 vnnns, saunas:
"1u"3;"= 3ai S¥§b nxzwau
Ans: £6 vnaas,
4}' fifi:"§vEn znzan
"A533 39 vnnas,
A 57.5}"« sax svnn nsann
" AGED 36 YEARS,
R"%uM-é. an: svzn sanuan wvn JELAN
AGED 32 YEARS,
3 TO 6 ARE SONS OF SRI SYED YOUSUFF,
Z
I003 HOIH V}lVJ.VN}J\-nl an um.-.--.
_ _ -.-. .. .u-mnnu\n.A HIGH COURT OF !(ARNAi'AKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH
nos. (1) (2) 5 (4) TO (6) AR:
nzpnsamrsn 3': 'ram: GPA HOLDER
AND nuns prrrrxouxn, *
sax svnn menu.
ALL 335151»: A? No.3, _;11 Cl1:_='J':¥".§S","-if
HUTCHIN8 Roan, --« ~
«I:
This House . 'Rent _*Re1_rision'~--..P'etition is filed
under Section «I6--«of xK£Varnstsfi:e'»»Rent Act, 1999
against the ordoré dated ;17;§;2fl09 passed on
I.A.NO.III in Ioosto/'zcooaon the :11: or
the mar Adc1i&ti.on5';1 Ismail "c'.jaus_;e_s Judge, uayohall
Unit, Behgsiore, i'3CCH.,!i'9.19i, dismissing the
I .A.NO..III" «exiled the"V_r'e_sp~ondent therein under
section' 43_ at 'ahrnataka inent Act road with
3eotion_I51 dfi the Code of Givil Procedure.
This ~ Petition coming on for
adnissian --thie~._ "spy, the Court passed the
following:-V = _
29;."
--v.fheov'a§rasont petition coming on for admission
1"~.i'é_Ahe§ri:::._§t"'v1ength in View of the petitioner not
ch"oosi:ng"".to deposit the rent or arrears or rent
.pr_ior". to the presentation of the revision
9' gipetition.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition
are that the petitioner is the respondent in an
$ vnoanom vxvwunw .m ......... uuuwv-u mwwamu V» ewwsmwwmmmmm. ruurn uuunl vr nHKiVMIHhM WW5??? LUUK% U?" Kfixwfliflfifl fflfifi ' mat look to the $ubject--matter,ta cansidur the importance mi thfl]g':
provision and the relation af_thattt7»t provision tn the general Gfifiectttt intended to be eac1.1._t_*eé.__by _'t:.§i6'"" V _ and upon 2 review :.th§i that aspect dtecidefi §i'!1ethe;r::_"_t_"tb.e " 4' anactmont is 'tQh§t t"i:Vt:cai;§dm' imperative or cnl§%§ir§¢t6£yQ"' V} The counsal wnuld alfi¢ s$§k;tbtgigca reliance on anathar dgci§ian,§;A_ in 3. CHIEKENNA .vs. N.i')'§_Ni?.; astmns (rm 1995 ms 2970}"9§%tiéfi%ax£fifp§ta§za§h """ 18, which reads as £e1iu§s§--'V't"4 t .
fiifigv I It is rule of 1;, interprétation wall established , that, whats the language of a »_ statue, in its ordinary meaning and *Tygr§mmatical canstruction leads ta 3 "mafiifast cantradiction cf the '-apparent purp¢se er the enactment, A: or to some inconvaiénce or ' absuxdity, hardship on injustice, presumably nut intended, a construction may he put upon it whiah madities the mashing at the wards, and «van the structure cf the sentence (Maxwell's Interpretation of statutes, 16' Edition, ?.229). The Cvurt will interprat a statute a5 far as