Sri K S Krishnamurthy vs Sri S Vijayananda Das @ S Vijayendra Rao on 7 August, 2008

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K S Krishnamurthy vs Sri S Vijayananda Das @ S Vijayendra Rao on 7 August, 2008

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

IN THE HIGH CMJURT OF KARKATAKA AT BANGALORE
BATED THIS THE 79" DAY OF AUGUST. 2008

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.Amf      '

H, R. R. P. HO,1@[@Q§.. 
C/W H. R. R. P. NO.130]"20£)§ ~

BETWEEN:

Sri. K. S. Kﬁshnamurthy, _

Ageé about 48 years, .   

Son of Late K. N. Srinivasaiah,"u  _ 

Shop N02 in the property 1

Bearing Old No.76,    . if V

New No.18, Pipe line,  V l .

Malteswaram,     . 
BANGALORE-560i'00:§;,  A ,   I    PETITIONER

    "(COMMON IN BOTH PETITION)

{By  A.  S. Prakash, Advs.)
AND:   .  J 

Sri. S. Vijaysmanda' Das ~ "
S..'Vija_v<~;é;1d;'a Rae, A'   .
San bf late B. 'Sadémandaiah,
Aged abémtk 68 ymrs;%V 4!
Resi(ii3iE._at rzg';a_, " ' '

 -  12th Cross-,.M6*5  
V .V "~.'~"si'd Phasa£:5_.I. P. I':
'71_BAP{GALORE-550'078. ...RESPONDENT

(COMMON IN BQTH ?E'I'I'I'ION) B. Sadashivappa &. S3331. Rajcshwaxti M., Advs.)

-HRRP 140.129/2003 is ﬁled u/s.-45(1) of the Karnataka 'Rc_:_x:§'-i Act, against the order dated 20.02.2008 passed in HRC "'VN0.417/2007 on the ﬁle of the XIV Add}. Small Clauses Judge, Eiazxgalore, (SCCH-10), dismissing the application ﬁled by the petitioner hcmin U] s.42(€r)(b) 65 (0) cf the K.R.Act, 1999. L' Act. it is-%sos;;bn§it:¢dV»':oot1iat, the petition ﬁled by the landlord is V V'v:' ;:V1V1£Eer Seeﬁonfii the Act. ﬁled an amclavit stating that, on the similar landlord had already obtain possession of the other .A;:3i*e1'ﬁises. He submits that, under Section. 31 of the Act, the HRRP No.130/2098 is filed U/S.46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, against the order dated 31.03.2008 passed on IA. in HRC.No.417/2007 on the ﬁle of the Chief Judge, Court of Causes, Bangalore, dismissing the appﬁcation ﬁled U/s.42{f_S}{e)' ofKR Act. ' »V These revision petitions comm' g on for admissioiz ' the Court made the foiiowingt 5 = .. « 9__13_~_D__§__R é A H.R.R.P.No.1i29/08 is directed-.___agaiiisfV'the 20.2.2008 in!-{RC No.41'?/2007. " M 1

2. Petitioner herein so under Section 42(6)(b)(c) of the Kamafaka RenEv.}&§;t, 19§9;"'(11§£§:nafter referred to as the 'Act? Court below to contest the efxiotioii to provision of Section 31(lj{g) of

3. Sectio1A1V"4f.3:(tE)flS)' Act requires permission of the,' case " 'ﬂ:1e___'_1a:ndio1d is seeking eviction' under 2-?"jV(12)(jfA)(hj--.oV1'~-V(;1) or under Sections 30, 31 or 37 of the R 4.. counsel for the petitioner submits that. the landlord is entitled for one residential and one non-residential premises.

5. The leaxned Trial Judge instead of co13.si::l__¢-;i:'i;:1'g'VV'_~ A' appkication within the scope of Section 4'.2(6)(b) 8:. -- b has gone into the question of rclationshiix of J respondent as landlord and tena:1:1t_b_y app1§' 111--g Sec,'ti'o1:'1 "3{e) V the Act. In my view'. the approach of leazmédi is totally misconceived, as there "is...;1o issoé to the relationship of landloxﬂ and mat. .AAf§hs'_o1dcr passed by the learned tn'a.1 igjazaggc»-.;g "iiof:_4s1:is*t aiu:?i:1c in iaw. 64 No.129/2008 is disposed of. ;Fhc'-- £5 dimctcd to consider the aﬁdavit ﬁled pezmission to contest the matter with the provisions of Section Rent Act.

If_ izﬁadc out by the petitioner, he may be the matter.

V "'Conseqi1;-;§1.1ﬂy. the connected HRRP No.130/2008 aiso iii:-rposcd of.

Sd/-.

Judgé *APj ~

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court