M/S Es-N-Es Trade Links, vs Mr B Balasubramanya on 17 September, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Es-N-Es Trade Links, vs Mr B Balasubramanya on 17 September, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

 {BYE $riE"".I§{i.[:V)::¥1aaghuT1eTth, Adv.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17*" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2oVIO,::"'».,_

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. 3USTICE A.N. VENUGOPA.L.A. 3

WRIT PETITION NO.26727120,1.Dl(TG4iVl-'CPC)'   T: . O.'

BETWEEN:

1. M/S. Es--n--Es Trade Links,  "

By its Proprietor A  _  
Mr. S.R.Khan, also lgﬁ'Own"as_V  ., , 
Shafiulla Rahim, ' '    7
Aged about 46 years," " 
S/o. Mr. Rahim__Kha'n,  .  .  '
#39, Bazaar St-r'eet',--. Ne-ei'asan,dr'~a',~~ 
i3anga|ore'''~:__56..£i'~'0'47.--.,_ "    »

2. M/s; Aregzo; ca's*:angs.,' 
Byﬁits _PrO'pr_ie.t:or'.,   _ .'
Mrs', Sheema ..'f".Khar1',A.._W,'_o. S.R.Khan,
Aged about 4.0 \';wearS",.._" "

#30, Bazaar St_re'e.t,'Neelasandra,
E;a'ng.alore'~--_ 560 047.

. .. PETITION ERS

.

 . AN.

lVrr_.°B.Balaéijblramanya,
S/O; late Sri' S.K.Beeranna,

  Aged about 52 years,
  #2,__7, Girls School Street,
 Seshadripu ram,

"'.Ba'rTgalore -- 560 020.

O V'  Sri 3wala Kumar, Adv. for C/R)

 RESPONDENT



This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the orders
Annexure ~-- F passed by the XLIV Addl. City Civili.,Ju_d'ge,

Bangalore in O.S.No.849/06 dated 2.8.2010 on  

This petition coming on for preliminary h-earirigg' '

group, this day the Court made the followin_g..:..,_ 

QRDER§_

Respondent/plaintiff has -i_nstitut.ed 

against the petitioners/defendaéritoli 5!"!  Ciifyil Court
at Bangalore, to pass:_._"d--ecr--ee  handover
possession of the suit  The suit
property was;  petitioners on
rent at the rate of
Rs.16,i~goQf/rt to be subsequent
enhancernent 'tenancy of the petitioners has

been't'ermin.ate.d_V'bly issuing notice dated 23.11.2005. The

 filed written statement dated 03.02.2007

 a_n-d__Vha'yé"_cvontested the suit claim.

 0 Plaintiff filed I.A No.3 under Section 151 read

A withgorder 15 Rule 5 of CPC, to direct the defendants to

  pay arrears of rent/damages, amounting to Rs.3,46,750/-

\%~'

(we-&



as on 31.01.2010 and in case of default, to strike off the

defence of the defendants, with a direction to_hand'»~.4over

vacant possession of the suit pren_1.i§ses.~f».'_'We-----:71§hE;_"'_

petitioners/defendants filed objections datedv~1}i~.06:.2i0V1Oy:." w 

The trial court by rejecting the gco.nte'ntions 

defendants has allowed the 3fVp'p.|_i..cation'onV o2.os;.2o1Mot.iianld 

called upon the defendants toi°:p.ay-.._Rs.S';3i3_,:?29fi~ to the
plaintiff. Defendants  writ petition
challenging the said ord'e'ii.ff:   if

3. 5jBy:"'ayn'V'o"rd.ejrit,la'ted":y.08-.09.2010, the petitioners
were to at the undisputed rate,
from thedate-offinstit.u'ti.o'n-~ of suit. The petitioners have

deposited1tRs.:2,5Q.y,Ot;.Q/gylby way of demand draft. By an

or'der:,,.dat'ed 1K4.09';2010, the said demand draft was

 flvencashedland the amount to be taken into

deposit. .0"  

"   Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

mpferused the writ papers. \Q»

/,1'/'

1*':



 _ plain,tiVffi;~

5. The plaintiff has claimed before the trial court

that, the defendants are liable to pay rent at Rs.34i,i5,f30/r

per month and incomplete short payments_..of"'m'o'ntta!f{_"'_

rent/damages of Rs.4,500/-- hifyrom  to 

30.06.2009 and that the aefenaaats,,i,rr.a-ye"notfchasyaa 

pay the monthly rent/damages.' from'V01,.D}",'2QjQ.9,,Vyyvithichﬁr

accumulated to Rs.2,6;s,5oo/gyyyfylaa.,,aa_31.ot.2o1o ;: In the
objections, the defendants,d-isp.i,it'e'(i~._'ty,§~said claim of the
plaintiff. Theyhaye  in support
of the stand  appears to be
 The trial
court payable at Rs.5,38,729/--

by the d"efendan'ts""alndiihaésf allowed I.A.No.3 filed by the

"44°A.:v"tenant continuing in occupation of the

ten4ancy.oremises after the termination of tenancy is an

 Aunauthpeirised and wrongful occupant and a decree for

 damages or mesne profits can be passed for the period of

 ,, ___such occupation, till the date he delivers the vacant

/'

t9



possession to the landlord, as held in the case of SHYAM
CHARAN vs. SHEOJI BHAI AND ANOTHER, repQrtg>gi'a._i_n

(1977) 4 sec 393.

7. The trial court whilej'pas'sin_g"._the::irr_i'pu'gned'-~«

order ought to have kept in_its  dec_isi*on«. 

Apex Court in the case of   (P) 'V

LIMITED vs. FEEDERAL' !vg_io*roRs-'{ié)V'Vi'L1_M1TﬁD'»--V-(2005) 1

SCC 705.

8. .si3--ngef'there.'is. dlisfpvutedviiith regard to the
monthly%__amo.u:nE.:_;paira_b|e;x--'triiall court ought to have
enquired -thereafter decide I.A No.3.

In not do'in__gii so,V"itthlasgilérhornmitted procedural impropriety

 andihenice the"impugnia2d order is irrational.

    I pass the following:

ORDER

i;'d,wsWrit petition is allowed and the impugned order t d d'f' d.

san smo ire // H The petitioners/defendants are directed to deposit Rs.2,86,729/- in the Trial Court, be_i.n§_'-.¢:'_:'t.he difference of the amount payable up _ The said amount and accumulated .a'rr:o-:ufnt''pay--able' '» up to 30.9.2010 shaEE:l_ be» deposited 30.10.2010 in the "T:ri'al__ ceiue; VTli'el".c;ie.fend'antssf"; shall continue to depoVsi_t"'t.he~..amo'u'ntat the rate of Rs.30,000/- p.m";*rms..1.1ia0.r2mo till the suit is disposed; vThe:.Apiahi.ritiff"'i)Ae_ r'el'eas.ed"'.the amount at the....rate;:Q_f with effect from p0_1V.0ve,l20'i::..0Vitiii=td'ete.'_ofefjtiispesai of suit. The in terms of this order i.e., Rs..._2,"8Vv€3,V'72_'.§,i.¥ »--bVe}ini/ested in Fixed Deposit in any if ii'~-.!ation'ai.is:ed Bank initially for a period of 6 months.

"tiiiii4iVi'e..disposing of the suit, the trial court shall 'V.pas:s'lorder with regard to the entitlement of the "..V__Aplaintiff and order payment out of deposited amount. In case, the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the interest earned on the deposit be released in \''2:

V. .. «xigi favour of the plaintiff. If any amount in deposit or any part thereof is found to be refundable..;to44'_:'t.he defendant, such amount and the _ interest earned be refunded tothe if In case of default on the deposit the amount alsydiirected h_ereirL,_At'h_e"'d.ef«ence of the defendants sh.a-l1':'st_a'ri~dA strucl<._of,.:§and the Trial Court sh"all'_.'fu'tt_hier for trial and disposVay!.:o'f._theisuit.

Rs.€2V,Si:?_iu,'0_00]'--' tl'e."posi'*tve'd this petition by the pet'iti'ojh,grsffijefenitlnants.be released in favour of the 're_s'po nd e_n't;iTp-l ayintiff wrhe instituted on 27.01.2006 and the _.l:A_vvzritten__'statement was filed on 03.02.2007. The are complete. In terms of the Karnataka .,,,%:(.Ca'se Flow Management in Sub~ordinate Courts) V"'Rules, 2005, the suit ought to have been disposed of long ago. The same having not taken place, the trial court is hereby directed to expedite the trial /"

and disposal of the suit. To facilitate the said course of action, it is further ordered that,

a) The plaintiff shall adduce and ' of evidence l before i2'o.~.1 i1'.2:o io H'V:.?j'!'ld defendants shall adduceg ._the'i ._ of evidence before 1:3) The trial COE"'%"r.t~*.iS tohear the 'arguments and dispose_ofV'l'thel'.s'iiit as,lVera.Iifli,[_'.as possible and atsiafr.;;asie\ein; iziri'1:hin" .m.onth from the date €tVhei:_lfr;§_aV| or »tl:1:"e:'.'isAsi;it* is eempieted.

sdli xaaqe

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court