Karnataka High Court
Sri B P Prathap vs Sri T R Srinatharaje Urs on 9 March, 2020
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
RSA.276/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
R.S.A.No.276/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B. P. PRATHAP
SON OF LATE PUTTASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
2. SRI. B. P. BHASKER
SON OF B. P. PRATHAP
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
BOTH RESIDING AT VALLAKOTE BEEDI,
NEAR BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE,
BETTADAPURA VILLAGE,
BETTADAPURA HOBLI,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-571 102. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI T R SRINATHARAJE URS
SON OF LATE T K RAMARAJE URS
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2. SRI T R DEVARAJE URS
SON OF LATE T K RAMARAJE URS
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RSA.276/2020
2
BOTH RESIDING AT BETTADATUNGA VILLAGE,
BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT, PIN CODE-571 102
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PALLAVA R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 30.11.2019
PASSED IN RA.NO.18/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED: 02.04.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.121/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed this second appeal.
2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the schedule shop premises. The said suit was resisted by the tenant on the ground that tenancy was not duly terminated.
3. The trial court on consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the tenancy was validly terminated and that the plaintiffs were not entitled for decree for possession and accordingly, directed the defendants to RSA.276/2020 3 deliver the shop premises within three months. They were also directed to pay the damage of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiffs in view of their unauthorized occupation over the schedule property from the date of termination till filing the suit.
4. In appeal which was filed by the tenants, the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was just and proper and could not found fault with. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.
5. As against this decree, this second Appeal is filed.
6. In my view whether the tenancy was validly terminated or not is essentially a question of fact. Since there is concurrent finding of fact about the valid termination of tenancy I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. Hence this appeal is dismissed.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the defendants - Appellants pray that they may be granted reasonable time to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property. RSA.276/2020 4 Having regard to the fact that this a commercial premises and they have been in possession for long years, it is just and proper to grant reasonable time to them. Accordingly, the appellants - defendants are granted one years time to vacate the schedule premises subject to condition that they should file an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that they will quit and hand over the vacant possession of schedule premises to the Respondents without dragging them to file execution petition and also pay the damages as ordered by the Trial Court, from the date of termination till the filing of the suit.
8. They are also directed to pay damages of Rs.5000/- from today till they hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises in favour of the respondents.
9. The damages ordered shall be paid on or before 10.04.2020. Subject to the above, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NM