Sri M A Sathya Raju vs H Beerappa S/O Hale Muniyappa on 18 August, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri M A Sathya Raju vs H Beerappa S/O Hale Muniyappa on 18 August, 2008

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

y.,_<.:..-u-.... Val?! u\r\r\.r1r'II:-n"',..,. ..--uwa~...~\-Jun! ur I\HlE!'IHlHIua;- ("Kg-fy OF KARNATAKA  COURT OF KARNATAKA i-{QG}.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANQALGRE
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF AUGUS_T .V2_'f):0E?g

BEFORE

THE :-1oN*BLE MR.  

WRIT PETITION NO.;?'84fé' CJF 2eoaj%;aR¢:;.%%%% _ '

BETWEEN :

SRI.M.A.SATHYA EMU _ , .
S/O'I'.M. ANANTHARAJIJ'-L  ;

AGE: 32 YEARS, R/A No.52? . 
(NC).43-1-A)3aAMRUTHAMAI*}AL_ _ AV
ROAD, Kc_mANjAx<uN'xﬁE OLD   'V
vILLAG.E',;...A.;g;;»co1,c:e1W:  A, '
BANGALORE'SE1UTHjjTALLII{  '  PETITIONER

(Bi? '%1éi.Tc.i.:LA:;§31:éi:s.1::VNA§eAY,5i§A RAG, ADVOCATE)

AND 

..  'T H. 3EEfzA§réA

' :.s~,to~ HALE MUNIYAPPA
,AGE.; 99 YEARS,

3  T. we KQNANAKUNTE VILLAGE

Vb"F_FAR1&HALLI HOBLI
BAN%(;:ALoRE SOUTH TALUK
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

 .. ,_ 1(A)'"I§.HEMANTHAKUMAR

AGE: 41 YEARS
S/O DRAMANNA

1(3) RJANARDHANA
AGE: 33 YEARS
s/0 DRAMANNA



ruurr uuuxi Ur n.AxNA:AIm HIGI1-COURT OF KARNAT&KA HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-HGI-I COURT OF KARNATAKA I-HG!

1(0) S!-IANTHAMMA
AGE: 65 YEARS
w/0 LATE S.RAJANNA

1(1)) ANASUYAMMA
AGE: 56 YEARS
w/o [LRAMANNA 

1(E) IDRAMANNA
AGE: 65 YEARS V
5310 LATE DASAI-"PA 

1(9) RKGIRIS!-I, AGE: 30  
s/0 D.RAMAN=N_A  

ALL ARE R/A 1{or;ANAI%u7N1§E'o%o   .
VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA MAIN   
ROAD,.BANG£5LORﬁ;:».560'_-9&8  A  RESF'ONDEN'I'S

'!'};;isi:x_x§fit péstitionfjis '*-gmdcr Articles 226 and 227 of
the-Gonstituﬁonsof-Indie: p1*a§I1Lr£g to issue a Writ in the nature
of  qu;~3shin;g~.the_o:dc1's passed on the unnumbered
interlocutory  filed by the petitioner under section
43 of the .__RE*:r2.':" Act, 1999, dated 2.4.08, passed. in
HRC 852; 2000 01t1"thi:'ﬁIe of the learned Chief Judge, Court
of,SmaI1'C_ausss at Béngalorc as per An11e:xun=:--L and etc.

 " V.   coming on for preliminary hearing this
A v ..  made the foliowing :

ORDER

Tﬁis Writ petition is directed against the order ' passed by the trial court in pending HRC No.862/2000 »' on its file on an application filed by the respondents - tcnants under section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1/ 1999 contending inter-alia that the HRC petition was not tenable for the reasons that there no relationship of landlord and tenant.

2. The learned judge t examined this matter, ' ' tne only for the masons that alike aptilieation filed earlier and that came to' the ma} court on 3.1.2005 N no occasion for again. It is this or§:i'e'I"' *i3s-- this writ petition under Article 227 of _ V3. " V' for the petitioner, Rao, learned counsel would 'j:.1_1'ge not as simple as is understood in the order; to the root of the matter and the petition; that the juxisdiction of the court is the question "'|l'lBI'i' wvuna \Jl I\l'\l\lVl"\lal"\l\l"I r-stun _\..ItJun! ur I\r\I\IVr-In-nu-I niuﬁ \...\JUIIi ur t\5-\|uV|n,|,ﬁ|\;| |-1"_,f-9 Lug"; of KARNATAKA naun LUUK! Ur IUIKNAIAIUI HIGEQ oCC:JUR"¥ OF KARNATAXA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH-

4. Learned judge of the trial court, aftezf noticing that a like appﬁcation ﬁled by the Li - respondent --- tenant having once been there is no occasion to applieation A' once again. There is :;1bsoI»Ai;:te13z:_ A reason assigned by the judge oroer. The matter is fof the trial court. It is for good his case before the' g .... ..o,No..occ}a$ioi1jfo;9'iﬁ'terference. ' * A dismiﬁed.

.....

Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court