Sri Ananthaswamy vs Smt Radha Sreenath on 17 February, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ananthaswamy vs Smt Radha Sreenath on 17 February, 2011

Bench: Jawad Rahim

HéTHE¥ﬂGkiCOURT(DFKARNATAKA,BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 17"' my OF FEBRUARY 2041..iT»-.' g_

BEFORE

THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICEM;AwAz:~VR;:\.§%;j1.:~%a"-TC: 

HRRP N0 28 0::  " %
MISC.CVL.339O 0312911
BETWEEN   . '

SR1 ANANTHASWAMY
S/O.GOVIf\3DASWAE\/EY   
R/AT.E\iO.273, 5'Fiti:'T~4A1'_F\3,; .  
4TH BLOCK, JAYANr.g3Am * 
BANGALORE 56001-1 T V 

    I    '   PETITIONER
(BY SRI B 4RA_JE§53D_RA PRFXSAD4, AD\'C'C'ATE )

AND :

1 SMT RADHA1sR_EEN'ATHV_   
W/O.SRISRI£_\iATH' 'T j % =
MAJOR R/AT.NQ.S3A,-. A _  «
THEERTHA APAR.T,MEl\£TS, £.-.TH.wxIr\s
17TH CRQS-515,, MALIJESHWARAM
E,~'A~F§GAL,,£)"REE _S€3Q_OO3   TTTTT .. .%

2 SRE EV':.Ai'§i03 '3R~£~é_E4vNAAT_H
 S/G;':3R;§'_S§1?.EVEff'-E,£3;E'E%*¥..--*'
' =..___,:~4A30R. R';AT.N£%;*§ 3123';
 Ti :%EERTH,A A1;>AR:T"TvzE:x2Ts; 4%: MAEN
_  _::?*§H CRQSS;.§ViALLE§HWARA?@
" " "3é?'«;§?*4'?s.}'Z:.s%V%M,,G§'«'gE'«$68883
"    R§S§@?éBE§%£E"S

» .  "   '4"~{,.$:?w;9'S§?;3';.f%§E?".3é§&..a'Y;%SA€%iﬁR, ,mv$§§::"%5 Cgtmg

   1; é /.
  t
. (1, :3
~ ~%../'



HRR? FILED U/S 46(1) OF K.R.ACTE AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED:18.12.2GiG PASSED IN .-~.__HRC
E\EO.126;'1999 ON THE FILE OF T§"fE XII--ADSL.VVVS_fV§;ALL
CAUSES EUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE 

FILED UNDER SECTION 2?(2)(r) {BF K.R.. ACT, _1;999;; n ;_. 

MTsc.CvL.3390,/2911 FILED UNDER SE-£TuT'IQVI\§--I.::1Si OF. 

CPC PRAYING TO STAY THE DPETMCTTTOTN MD 'Ex4EC'uT10N
OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE EAsE;EDm HT<Dc'N.O--.12T3/A19T9D9

DATED 18.12.2010 BY THE ><1':,_A-DDL. SMALL.' C.§3.T;S5E._

JUDGE, AT BANGALORE.

THIS HRRP ANQ  COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION  D_!lY,_VTif'§E I'-COURTAA MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-  .. -.  :   
TeI'I_a«i".§f   order of eviction
against..hi_;f%1~.D"r1E§TT:jf (T-)Vof the Rent Act, 1999.
2. Hearva, O' I V 2 V t
3. Ce r}textDEaEVfa   I 
 3:?!TRTEEDQVQOE§T£f}'7${{1I,TR&€fha Sreenath am Name;

Sf&Eﬂ.3I§§.S§§gT§T'EJ€§b'iCt§On of the petitioner herein Tram the

T".___.:EsiéE:Tt%':§§ E0-%':TDT§VoTT the premise mat DTEQTTTEEETE33? me

V:*~.._.§'3"€~€'§f':8?;§'a's WES TEE owner 6%' the §E"%D@%'3Z';.«*' in QTTESETDD, HE

 }:T~é};:% Tzéjtasstaie §EaTsT:2§ Eeizénéf §€'€§%Z§§§'"é€£"S 33 aégcs Meham ané

 ___'\fEeTTE as his surviving Tseérs, veena ¥"eE§ﬂQE.éE$?EE§ he? sﬁare



3
in the preperty by a deed ef reiinquishmerit and conferred
upon them ebseiute titie. It was further ax/erred that the

13* respohdeht--Radha Sreehath inducted the petitioner as

tenant in the residential portitm. However, he 

obtain the premises under a usufructuary n'ir::i:"rtge:?.g:,e"' u

not knowing the obiigations, he""executed_..a:"-d.ec'um.eh'tA

brought by him. Nehetheiess, he ia"r:..eA.a~d,var*iee~..:et._

Rs.30,000/-- agreeing to pay'  R.é.2,.S{3.():f_-I  "thus,  i

he Continued to reside;--ithe s.c-iiedtdeii"pzfemieesi-A 
b) The 2"" petitiorier§?'ettirn_e.d" country after

his studies 2rx;U'.$_.;i=:.. iri__3e_ne~'199:8x-3-nd___i:§ keen in starting a

ciinicin (3astte'ei?j'te?e§'dg.3}_?;"~ Therefore, they requested the
;3etEtoner"cQ %\;3:cxa5'te'4Vthe eitemisesg but the petitioner, exceiat

asseﬁring, eie %ie--t"ﬁg_ace.:et Hence, the sought his eazietien,

'  e.};""E";t2'e:'petitioner' resisted the proeeeeihgs denying

 E'€§i3?€..i:€§§:i"T..f::§i"iip ef iehdierd eee terieett in ties regard, he

 eiieigetiighe tied eetainee the ereesieee in e trehseetiee ei'

 siéeifsigege fer e eeeiee ef :2; geete ieitieiie eeyiee e *5i,§i'%"s ef

 V';§.e.é%,GGQ;'~, iie admitted he was pexgieg Rs'2;;S§Q,i"~ emt

EX,
:2 3:3 /-

.3'.

,,;..«

if;



4
but net as rent, but tgwards premium. He claimed to have
spent Rs.1,2S,OOO/- for renovation ef the premises" Thus,

he denied he was tenant.

d) The other defence taken by him is, und.et4'_*i:h'gr:"(;;ra'!..A

agreement, respondents had agreed toM__e'e.ntihju.ei"

mortgage transaction for a furthvei"meei*Eet§._o~f »=;.rea:r'sV"Ved'« payment of Rs.2,SGO/- p.m. as preznilam.

required the premises for own"us'e. and ocﬁupratieni, H

e) Based on r.fiaterE'a4!._V_ jdjroipositions in the pieadings, parties have_I_ed_ shown that as the petitiE>:'3ie.rf.denied dr'e.i.ati0n's'Vhi"pd of iandiord and tenant, respond-er:t.s seeking a deciaratioe which_v$uiti4'wa_S dVe,e:re'edV"ii'§ their favour by judgment dated The""'pe'titiener had questioned the game in the apeeai was a faiiere by judgment aa.%_:§a 2V2;4§?1;f2:§ee.

..:""i'}__A':'?~'.,'=§i"'E'§{§i"i§ out these facts, reeaeriaerzts eeritendee i:;h_atT%:%:e eetitienee is a tenant under them and he has been Mgiausing eediees izepedimente in exereise ef their right" tie 5 has acted adverse to their interest and thus was iiable tc:

be evicted on that ground aise.

5. Learned counsei for the petitioner qU€StiGﬁiE:i.§'._th€ impugned order, weuid contend even if jurai was estabiéshed, action for eviction was ur}te"n..;3b'ie"~as the 2"" respondent was not in the coightrijk'ar;d'._was-isieitu se'tt1_ed7 abroad and their need is netpat aii denuine.

6. Per contra, learned Ceaiissei for.thetf'respdedehts-- V iandiords rightly draVwS.V_myit'"atte§1ti'Ci-h_ toith'e'"tact that respondents had sought .ie'vi"ctii6ri ggetitioner under sectiqh'tiii1'(1.§(h) Rent Control Act, 1961, in HRC'.--1§Z6/99,VVVbVii_t._afteit»».tepeai,, it was COi'3V€i'fZ€d into a petitiqn un"dVef'E3eCtioh 2"35(2)(r) of the Rent Act; 1999. la these ti-afeceAed§ees;"'pet§t§oeer hae eehied jurai i"8IafI%Oi'iSi""§ip te"':..tn;t§ich the triai court by its ereet dated u2:"'3%:'2ﬂ2QQ2;'3«.Vai2'e€ted the reseeedehte te get their rights §€%ei'§".ff';i:f'i'i€§ by a eivii eeett ef eetaaeterzt ieriseietien. The zie;»ei':s;;=ier2 eretettee aaaieet that ereet ie i-i;§_R?,238;'§2 ages eiismissea er: ".?,3.2.0§3, Cehsetaieritiy they had ta fiie 3;

6 0.8.430/{)4 which uitimately was decreed on 24.11.2005.

Again the tenant had questioned the same in RFA389/06 which was dismissed one 22.4.2009. By this metifieel he had unriecessariiy harassed them. He we;;i_d:V:'VfLi4Etii:ie.r submit the 2" respondent has now returned permanently and his need is genirj;e"'faii'd. V

7. At this stage, iearned_4C0unsel'l--f0r etviitelclv";3etit?:o.iiet"g submits his ciient wiil be se't'i»s:f'iieci if E*eas'on:abzie time is given. Counsel foi~.':i;'i*'ze reisleen-eeiiVtss.iaedleids opposes grant of time.

8. 'Cf is'.sii'b'ii'iitted by the petitioners coi;nse'i.an<i Vail :o'tih_e;f"atten:e--ing circumstances in which the respeiidenijs _VareV'v--.piAa_cec3",u it is desirable ta accept the re-e,jiies't.A efAthe"f3et*i*t'iVoeer anti to give a quietus to the 'i'iti_§a.ti:en"eetc§fi'e.en the eerties. Being ef this view, while c'e_eiirei_ie§"1--.V_tiie erder of evictien made by tee triei court? the tgetitieeeiwteiient is greet ezie year time ?i'§i'i"i teeey Se .i;_ecfete the ;}i'€ii'i%§€S '<2./'§iiiE"i?I&i'ii';i" eiie lie eeiizzet eessessiee ﬁe the teseendents witiweet cempeiiing teem te take 3'3""

\ 7 Coercive steps. This order is, of course, subject to the petitioner paying tents as and when they accrue and he shall also ciear the arrears within two months fr0m--"i:eday fading which the beneﬁt of time granted by iapse. Petitioner is further directed not party interest or part with the"fjrem§s';es .;i'r{V':':**.;;:xrV:0'e.*2A:%' anybody. He shali fiie an aAt:'*Fid»é:--x1_§At undetakéhg to comply cor9§dvi.t.ie:4sj"_;v~}i't,hiE€' three' weeks from today, and sha:3ti"'i'uiijrziétstga cdé;:>'y*d'f'V4it to the learned counsel for the With these observations, 41'h:e':-.pet§tio:;»€ .di's~»§3_QsVed Censequently, Misczj,'§e"-,disni1issed as having become infruc:tLfuu'3.tt ?'?}:;'7:.4%_.Eg''\«.s*§}~§"§'''_ " A

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court