Karnataka High Court
Sri Aleemuddin vs Sri S.K.S. Hydri on 4 December, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 502/2013
AND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 503/2013
C.R.P.NO.502/2013
BETWEEN:
Sri. Aleemuddin
S/o late Abdul Shafi,
Aged about 33 years
Shop No.2, property bearing no.104
(PID No.78-6-104)
Dry cleaners
Chandi chowk road
Shivajinagar
Bangalore-51. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Harish H.V, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. S.K. S. Hydri,
S/o Syed Shafiuddin
Aged about 49 years
R/at No.35/19,
Manick nagar
Opp: USA Layout,
Sanjayanagar,
2
Bangalore-560 095.
Rep. by his Special Power of attorney holder
Sri. Syed Fariduddin
S/o syed Fazluddin
Aged about 54 years
R/at No.8, 1st cross,
5th main, rahmath nagar
R.T.Nagar post,
Bangalore-32. ..... Respondent
(By Sri.Irshad Ahmed K, Advocate for C/R)
This petition is filed under Section 18 of Small
Causes Court Act, the judgment and decree dated
01.10.2013 passed in S.C.No.15527/2012 on the file of
the XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall
Unit, Bangalore (SCCH-21), decreeing the suit for
ejectment, arrears of rent and damages.
C.R.P.NO.503/2013
BETWEEN:
Sri. Sridhar
S/o Ramesh Babu,
Aged about 45 years
Shop No.3, property bearing no.104
(PID No.78-6-104)
Dry cleaners
Chandi chowk road
Shivajinagar
Bangalore-51. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Harish H.V, Advocate)
3
AND:
Sri. S.K. S. Hydri,
S/o Syed Shafiuddin
Aged about 49 years
R/at No.35/19,
Manick nagar
Opp: USA Layout,
Sanjayanagar,
Bangalore-560 095.
Rep. by his Special Power of attorney holder
Sri. Syed Fariduddin
S/o syed Fazluddin
Aged about 54 years
R/at No.8, 1st cross,
5th main, rahmath nagar
R.T.Nagar post,
Bangalore-32. ..... Respondent
(By Sri.Irshad Ahmed K, Advocate for C/R)
This petition is filed under Section 18 of Small
Causes Court Act, the judgment and decree dated
01.10.2013 passed in S.C.No.15526/2012 on the file of
the XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall
Unit, Bangalore (SCCH-21), decreeing the suit for
ejectment, arrears of rent and damages.
These petitions are coming on for Admission this
day, the Court made the following:
4
ORDER
These two revision petitions are filed by the tenant against judgment and decree passed in S.C.Nos.15527/2012 & 15526/2012 dated 01.10.2013 whereunder ejectment suits have been decreed and revision petitioners-defendants have been directed to hand over vacant possession of suit schedule property within one month from the date of judgment and to pay arrears of rent at Rs.43,200/- in each case and damages at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month from the date of suit till the date of vacating of suit schedule premises.
2. Learned Advocates appearing for parties having argued the matter for some time have filed compromise petitions under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC in both the revision petitions. Terms agreed to between the parties under the said compromise reads as under:
(1) "At the intervention of the elders, well wishers and the advocates on record, the parties have 5 compromised the above matter on following terms and conditions.
(2) As per agreed terms and conditions, the respondent/plaintiff has permitted the petitioner/defendant to use the suit schedule premises till 31.12.2014 only as per his request. The petitioner/defendant herein have specifically agreed to vacate suit schedule premises on or before aforesaid date without driving plaintiff/respondent to file execution petition.
(3) The petitioner/ defendant herein has paid Rs. 57,600/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousands Six Hundred Rupees only) through Demand Draft bearing No.005199 drawn on IDBI Bank, Bangalore, dated 03.12.2013 and the respondent/plaintiff herein has received the said amount in full and final settlement of his claims and satisfaction of the decretal amount and damages till December 2013 with respect to use and occupation of suit schedule premises by the petitioner herein.
(4) The petitioner/ defendant has further agreed to pay rent/damages at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from January 2014 till December 2014 within 10th of every English calendar month, till he hands over vacant possession of schedule premises on or before aforesaid date.6
(5) The petitioner/defendant shall not induct third persons in the schedule premises and shall not sub-let the suit schedule premises in favour of anybody.
(6) The petitioner/defendant has further agreed to keep the schedule premises in a good condition, subject to natural wear and tear.
(7) The parties pray this Hon'ble court to direct the office to return the court fee paid by the petitioner in the above case to the petitioner.
Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to decree the suit of plaintiff as per terms of the compromise petition and modify the judgment and decree of the court below in SC 15527/2012 on the file of XVII Addl. Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore by extending time with enhanced rent/damages."
3. Parties are present before Court. Plaintiff - respondent in both the petitions is represented by the Special Power of Attorney Holder Sri Syed Fariduddin. Special Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff- respondent had been produced before trial Court and marked as Ex.P-1. Power of Attorney holder had also 7 been examined before this Court as P.W.1. Parties present before Court admit execution of the compromise petition and they state that after having understood contents of compromise petition, they have affixed their signatures out of their own, free will and volition and without any force, threat or coercion. Learned Advocates appearing for both parties, in token of having identified the parties present before Court, have also affixed their signatures to compromise petition. Learned Advocate appearing for revision petitioners has also handed over demand draft as per clause (3) of the compromise petition. Sri Syed Fariduddin, Special Power of Attorney holder who is present before Court acknowledges receipt of the same. In that view of the matter, I do not find any impediment to accept the compromise petition. Same is hereby accepted.
4. Accordingly, revision petitions stand disposed of. Judgment and decree passed by XVII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in 8 S.C.Nos.15527/2012 & 15526/2012 dated 01.10.2013 stands modified in terms of the compromise petition.
In view of the compromise having entered into between parties even before matter is being admitted, Registry is directed to refund the Court fee paid on revision petitions to revision petitioners by issuing cheques in their favour and on proper identification. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE *sp