Karnataka High Court
The Regional Manager vs Dakshyani on 4 April, 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1219 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
THE REGIONAL MANAGER
M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM
CORPORATION LTD
NO.25, "VINOD COMPLEX"
JAYACHAMARAJENDRA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY
GENERAL MANAGER
SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DAKSHYANI
W/O LATE B.G.SHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT "ADARSH PALACE"
DOOR NO.A 2, 47TH CROSS
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU 560 290
B.S.VINOD
S/O LATE B.G.SHANTHAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs. i.e.,
RESPONDENT NO.1, RESPONDENT NOs.2 TO 5
2. HEMALATHA PRATHAP
W/O PRATHAMKUMAR
D/O LATE B.G.SHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
-2-
3. KALPANA V DHAWAN
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
W/O VIJAY DHAWAN
D/O LATE B.G.SHANTHAPPA
4. KARUNA A HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O ANAND HIREMATH
D/O LATE B.G.SHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5. B.S.GOUTHAM
S/O LATE B.G.SHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SYED YOUSUF S/O LATE SYED HYDER
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT "ADARSH PALACE"
DOOR NO. A 2, 47TH CROSS
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 290
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BHARGAV .G, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. C.R. GOPALASWAMY, ADVOATE FOR R1 TO R5))
---
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 01.12.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.978/2008 ON
THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
ARREARS OF RENT AND DAMAGES AND ETC.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION/REPORTING
SETTLEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant would fairly submit to this Court that, the respondents/plaintiffs based on the decree for ejectment, have initiated the execution proceedings in Execution Petition No.4417/2019. He would further submit that, the Executing Court has executed the decree by issuing delivery warrant and accordingly the possession is handed-over to the decree holder on 02.11.2021.
2. At this juncture, the counsel appearing for respondents/plaintiffs would submit to this Court that, though the decree holder has secured possession, the appellant/defendant is yet to dismantle the underground petrol tank, which still contains petroleum products. He would further submit to this Court that, unless the appellant/defendant totally dismantle the underground fuel tank, respondents/plaintiffs cannot utilize the premises.
-4-
3. At this juncture, counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submits that, the underground fuel tank has to be dismantled after securing permission from the statutory authorities as well as explosive authorities under the relevant Act. Therefore, he would submit to this Court that, the appellant needs to be granted some reasonable time to dismantle the underground fuel tank.
4. Perused the material on record.
5. On perusal of records this Court finds that, the respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for ejectment way back in 2008 and the same was decreed in 2018 and the decree is executed by handing over possession to the respondents/plaintiffs on 02.11.2021. It is in this background, this Court feels that the appellant/defendant cannot squat over the premises under the guise of securing permission from the concerned authorities for dismantling the underground fuel tank. By not taking further recourse, the appellant/defendant is virtually depriving the lawful owner from utilising the said -5- premises, though possession is handed-over on 02.11.2021 itself.
6. At the request of the counsel for the appellant/defendant, by way of final indulgence, this Court would finally grant eight weeks time to secure appropriate permissions from the concerned authorities and to dismantle the underground fuel tank. The appellant/defendant shall be permitted by the respondents/plaintiffs to enter the premises and to dismantle the underground fuel tank. If this exercise is not completed within eight weeks from today, the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month till the underground fuel tank is dismantled.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*