Sarfuddin Since Dead By Lrs vs M G Ramappa on 26 February, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sarfuddin Since Dead By Lrs vs M G Ramappa on 26 February, 2010

Bench: Aravind Kumar

 

 

I

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY or FEBRUAR12 
BEFORE ""'" "x

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE;ARAV1N'D'It::ﬁvm;g  

H.R.R.P. NO.9¢;OF'_'2{§VO9=_V  ii" A V}

BETWEEN:

 

1 . Sarfuddin,
Since dead by,f;1'»S&':

(a) Srnt. Shahadabeégu-rr1.'%'."_'V» 
Aged 44 yszars,  "  - 
W/0,      

(b)    
   
S/0. se;:1§tud¢;«;;n, _ --

{C}  
Aged,I_O~years,'._ 
A. S 0. Late Sarfuddin,

  na'i;ural'Guardian Mother.

  
. Late'S'arfL1ddin.
 Rep.  natural Guardian Mother.

 re)  Sabaa,

'=..Aged 17 years,

" w Late Sarfuddin,
Rep. By natural Guardian Mother.

  _(;f).:§ Sameera.



 '(By Sn'.  Manmohan and Vinay. M,
  ~Ady. for R1 and R.2)

 

2

Aged 11 years,
Late Sarfuddin.

2. Anwaruddin.
Aged about 52 years, I
S/0. Late Habeebuﬂa, 

All R/at No.14l/1,'

New No.M-- ,  
Umar Khayam Road   
Mandi Mohalla.  2
Mysore -- 570 C21.

.  No14A8...4Y'a.davagiri,
 [2 ''DeVVaarajéi*-.M0ha11a,
"-'._I'V.1Iyseife..--'A'57O O21.

 petition is filed under Section 115 CPC

U "   ..._§1gair§1st the order and decree dated: 28.02.2009 passed
 '"RR.N0.23/2007 on the file of the H Addl. Sessions



 

Judge, Mysore. rejecting the rent revision petition and
filed against. the order dated 20.01.2007 passed in
HRC.No.63/2003 on the file of the Pr]. 1*" Civilgludge
(JR. DN). Mysore. allowing the petition filed U/SW2v.7_[2.lV(c]
& (r) of KR Act.   

 

This petition coming on for Final Hear'in2g.. this  "

the Court. made the following:

This Court by order"--~._dated  

admitted the above reyisiony__;;lie'i;ition' and"'had_e§alled for
records and directedgpostled for final
hearing immediately l~tl0:e"r'ec0rds. As per
the noting   Court Records

have 1'._:3een_A releeivveijdlyiiilthve mjonth of January, 2010 i.e..
on 02.0'l.,_200yl0  the matter was listed for

finalitearingi 22.02.2010. 25.02.2010 and today.

 matter was heard finally today by

 co'n_sefit."ovf__1earf1ed Counsel for parties.

 2.; The unsuccessful respondent is questioning

the__c,oVr'rectness and the legality of t:he order passed in "*iiRc.No.e3/2003 passed by the Principal E Civil Judge a,,_, rrrr II (Jr.Dn.) dated 20.01.2007 where under t.he order of eviction came passed under Section 27(2)(c){r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, which came to be conyfiruniied by order dated 28.02.2009 by the H Additionai"'Se'S_SioVii5: _ Judge, Mysore. in RR.No.23/200?. it 2 orders which are now challenged--iriri re'-ii-s_i01;ii petition.

3. The facts iii' net sihieil' sijeyivéisyfoiioixfs:

One Sri. Habeebu11a'~iteiisiritjyiiiijrespect of the property beai'i:"ig=§.yVy:y1'No.:141 situated at Umar ;Khayé1'ni_.. it/iohaila. Mysore (herein referred"t.o'as 9p.et.i--tion"--.s.c'h'edu1e premises). The said petition eysched.i;1Ve"'pre'mises was taken on rent by the .SE'ri.I\/}Iu.'ir1._abeebi'1H11a from Sri.Puttaraju. By a 23.07.1997, the p€titiO}§".i schedule preriiises crdine to the share of the first respondent Liqierein Sri.M.G.Ramappa. Subsequent to the death of .9 Sri}'MA'.Habeebu1ia. his wife, children and two brothers it continued to reside in the said premises as tenants.

.' for dismissal of the petition.

6 Subsequently as aforesaid, the eviction petition ir1 HRC.No.63/2003 came to be filed under S€CE.iOI1'2?y{2](.Ci) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act. 2999...

contended in the petition that the.. second"pet'it.io'n.ezj is it married and having Children aI1d':.on;'_A_ae'eou:1t' and privacy they required'»t'.h'o..\schAe'dule_VVpi7e:*ii;i'ses "and " V accordingly, the evictior1 peti:t.i«on"<:aI'n.e to he i.nit.iated.

5. On seryfiee of and ﬂied their the averments made in xup a contention that there Vyas landlord and tenant and it was the respondents that the sehed'u'1e.prem»is_esV was put to non--re.sider1tial use. The 'respor1d'ei1t'y_s"'denied the requiremem of the petitioners iandit Was~v..ooritended that the petitioners were having a _ resid'er1t'ia1*h"ouse at No.48. Yadavagiri. Mysore. and in piacées at Mysore City. On this ground they premises to non--residential premises and t.hus,..i_t had committed an error in allowing the petition. lr_V"wa'seT.a!,so contended that. the revision petitioners were" cVaAr.ryir1gV_"'i'n'* the vehicle repairs in the portii'o'n--0f tl1e_..pav'.?en1erit in front of t.he schedule premises and-_this aspect. =vv'as'-~notu considered by the Court It was'vv.alsoAV"conVtendedV that PW.1 had adniitted iri""h'is';eros_swe>tarr1'ination that he was possessing; Vi itfésivdentiiaip.Daccornrriodation consisting a kitchen and a toilet whi-*:h the Revision Court pet.ition and this had resultedulin the administration of justice. The .r_espoﬂn"deVntt..l':)eforeAthe rent revision No.23/2007 on ' se"rvice"v0f._n0tiee lllll "appeared and contested the said revisiion--..peti'tio1r1 and supported the order passed by the Ciourt belotv and sought for dismissal of the petition. it The revision Court in RR.No.23/2007 forrriulated the following points for it.s consideration:

W/l 1 E

11. I have heard Sri.S.M.Babu. iearned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and SFi.P.N.i\/I&1I111.T€.)_}i'c):i1, learned Counsel appeariiig for respondents No;'."1"a.:fid.:2.:_.V

12. Sri.S.i\/I.Babu would re'i'te'1'ate'_ raised before the Revision Cou.rt"__and 'v'\;'§."(A)"1."tI('iv'i.'1'(')'.7'\f'V' contend that the order of below under Section is«"c'on"trary to evidence on record by VA vAA.'atte.r1tion of this Court to V. where under, PW.i has space available in the the business ir1 and this fact ought to have, been taizeiiVinto"-consideration by the Court below ii"'andaeoordiingly contends that the findings of the Court Aiibeiow'is.V"e.ohtraVry to evidence on record. He would aiso con't.e11d_._* 'that'. insofar the ggrriund of bonafide _iequire1':*ient i.e.. sought" for his own occupation by the it . pet'.i-tioner -- iandlord is devoid of merits inasmuch as it " "'d't£I"il'1g the crosswexamiriation of PW.1 it is admitted that I7 fact that RW.l -« Sarfucldiri. has stated in his examination in chief itself that he is a mechvax7"ii_c'e..by profession. It is also aciiiiitted in the cross--e:§amfin.ati<;.n"A th.at he is carrying on the said profession.,'--;a.\3oi3at.i:on. It has also come in the evidence that he is inot,..haVingr,__ai1yA separate shop or business eisg whérei" Pere.té'ontJ7a in} the Cl'OSS"f3XElI'11l'I"1aE,lOIl he admit.%ii:,:%;3.at, on the mechanic avocation til,-.*1._Kffro1lTlit' 't:~hen.:pe>tit,ion schedule premises. He, in the cross submissioll all the vehicles which cc)i1:I1ell"f:):r' schedule premises at (JI1(;t._' later part of the cross' examination i"ia1rilel}4fin" other breath he admits that all vtligev'veI1icles~.w1tiieh come for repair are kept in 315651; of the petition schedule premises.

Though.l lliejjstialtes in the crosswexamination that he is ﬂVcarrylingl"onthe mechanic work on the footpath it cannot fbe accepted for the simple reason since he himself ' admits that he has not taken permission either from the

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court