Sri Ravichandran vs K R Vasudeva Rao on 20 January, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ravichandran vs K R Vasudeva Rao on 20 January, 2010

Bench: Ravi Malimath

IN THE HIGH COURT OE's<i'\R"I"\:ATAT<A AT BANGALQRE
OATEO THIS THE 20" DAY OF JANUARY 
BEFORE A  ii in .
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE ,R,A_\_/'I M_-A'L1i~iTi'XT:H"::  it 

HRRP.NO.226 OE  *

BETWEEN:

Sri Ravichandran

S/o |V|.P. P€i'L3._fI'T1ET:E'A,"'_V _   V   " 

Aged abot;~t"'<ii2«i..y'ear;;,    '

Occupation; PiropVrieto'r«.o'i"¥_' .. 

M/s. Si;*ir"ava.g"'i7aiio'r;.; Sho--p,'~--. 

No.2,<_In BuiiA'dviTng.VVN'oA.4*3._3';'.1_, . _'

Gurumzgrthy 'P.eo'dyt.i_ayou_t," __

15' Biock,__Ramamurt'i~ayh'a_g'af,

Bangaiorea 560 016,  ...PETITIONER

  (B_'5:/";$f'iE 'Re.d.dy, Advocate)

1, H  Rao

"~i.S/oV__Ru.k.:mog~ Rao,
Agedabout 71 years.

   Radha Vasudeva Rao

 W/o K.R.Vasudeva Rao,
Aged about 60 years.
Both are residing at No.413/1,
Gurumurthy Reddy Layout,
1" Biock, Ramamurthynagar,

Bangalore ~ 560 016. ...RESPONDENT

VOW (By Sri Omkaresh, Advocate,for C/R) This HRRP fiied under seetion..¢4;5'--_(i)_"of'*»KvR_ Act, against the order dated 2S'..V6;_?_O09 »passe.d»_."i'n_ HRC.No.241/2008 passed try.the Xi./_II'I AddoVE»;'Ct:dge, ffourt of Smaii Causes, Member, -.lYI'ACT--4," .$anga.ior'e,'""aiiowing" the petition filed under sectioni'2_7(2)(r) of i<i<'Act:.§ This HRRP coni..in'g. ofi fo.Ari"aVdrni'ss'ion day, the Court made the foiiowing;i_+' ' Theo :i9ii:i?tgC_:""iV\Vio.241/2008 under Section---27't.2iih(r;5':iIof. Rent Act,1999, seeking to e\/VVi'c_t By the impugned order the Revision'i«P_eti.tion._=vtr_a'siilaiéiowed and the petitioner was di_»i"e:cte_d to han"d.oy_e.r the vacant possession of the Petition ' ;s'Chedu_iei ';:4rem_ises within 6 months thereof. Aggrieved by "their'sa.n*ieV.;;gjfthoeiipresent Petition is fiied. if ,. Sri Gangi Reddy, learned couhsei for the ip;e'titioner, contends that the impugned order is erroneous "on facts and iaw and iiabie to be interfered with. Ge/4»-we

3. The first contention is that the impugnedbﬂorder has been passed by the Court of Motor Tribunal. He therefore contends that jurisdiction to pass such an orderir been initiated and continuedvunder'the'--Karn;§.{.a§sa"Ren;t'.Act:*C and hence the Court of the Tribunal could not hat/e any Petition.

The submission of based on the cause~titie been mentioned as Ciaivms Tribunal'. The same is oniy a'A"t.y_ping' e:rrAor-'a'n«d:LV"n'othing more. Even otherwise there -is noéinjuryioriiharrn that is caused to the petitioner since :V%co.ncern"ed Judge who passed the order had i--.jVur-isidictionv xuhdier law to pass the said order. On mere wrong mentioning of nomenciature of the Court wouid not entitle-We impugned order to be declared as nuii and void. A' that reason, the first contention of the iearned counsel it the petitioner is unsustainabie.

eﬂrr

4. He further contends that the Eandiords have other shops and hence thereiiiistno: V» for them to maintain a Petition soiiipfa is concerned. Notwithstan.d'in._g.' thAet.eQiden:Q.é'- the said effect it wouid be of the landlord to decide that are required by him and requirement would havepﬂtiov ::bve'Ving"'b:onafide and for the purpose same having been ground avaiiabie to the peunoneg" A T R V. Sf} further contended that ostensibly the only reason.:fe.rV"fiVij;n.§}~*the Petition is to extract higher rent. That coiiisistVe'rith/~i' rents are being increased and he has been payinoivthe enhanced rent and when an exorbitant sum was A'-.,d'e.muanded he was unable to meet the demand and ..._therefore the present Petition has been fiied, 1 find no material avaiiabie nor anything to substantiate so far as QC/L"

IIMIISDIMII this ground is concerned. This ground not being backed by any materiai the contention that the Petition due to demand for higher rent is therefore.un"s~u.sta.i'nabie;-it _ it

6. It is further contended :'tha't':a~ri alppiicationiuiriidier Order 18 Ruie 1'? read withi._S'"e..ctionA'1$1.ofC'PAC_:'was-'imade.i' seeking to set aside the o_tdde'r.._dvVagted.'27+,6A--2ﬁ09. He, therefore, contends ''''that. Court should have considered the"appEiicati'oti': a'iid:'s.._f'aiVi'ut_e'to do so, would render theiAih*i.pug'ié.eciuorder bad in iaw. Aéfterathé airguvments were concluded the matter set dtwyn forwjudgment and it is on that day, the said been fiied. Fiiing of such an appiication at such g__'va'.;beiated stage would undoubtedly lead to a gAcgoncziusi"on that the same has been done to drag on the Q'-..V"p..roéceedings. The question of granting an adequate dopportunity wouid not arise at ail in this case. The petitioner has been adequateiy heard and each of his Q//«M

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court