Sri Khalid Mohamed Khurram Sait, vs Smt. Ramani Arun Kumar, on 19 June, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Khalid Mohamed Khurram Sait, vs Smt. Ramani Arun Kumar, on 19 June, 2020

Bench: Krishna S.Dixit

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.735 OF 2020


BETWEEN:

1.   SRI KHALID MOHAMED KHURRAM SAIT,
     S/O LATE SHUKOOR SAIT,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT NO.462, 15TH CROSS,
     4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
     INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 038.

2.   SMT.DARAKSHAN FATHIMA,
     W/O SRI KHALID MOHAMED KHURRAM SAIT,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT NO.462, 15TH CROSS,
     4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
     INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 038.

     AND ALSO AT:

1.   SRI KHALID MOHAMED KHURRAM SAIT,
     S/O LATE SHUKOOR SAIT,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT NO.40, GROUND FLOOR,
     CLASSIC AUTOMATIVES, 2ND CROSS,
     ACHAIAH SHETTY LAYOUT,
     BENGALURU - 560 080.

2.   SMT.DARAKSHAN FATHIMA,
     W/O SRI KHALID MOHAMED KHURRAM SAIT,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
                              2



    RESIDING AT NO.40, GROUND FLOOR,
    CLASSIC AUTOMATIVES, 2ND CROSS,
    ACHAIAH SHETTY LAYOUT,
    RMV EXTENSION,
    BENGALURU - 560 080.                      ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT.RAMANI ARUN KUMAR,
W/O LATE SRI K.ARUN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.40, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,
ACHAIAH SHETTY LAYOUT,
RMV EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 080.                          ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S.SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE)


     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
24.01.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2883/2019 ON THE FILE OF
THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                      JUDGMENT

This regular first appeal having been argued for sometime, this Court suggested for an amicable settlement regarding being had to the longevity of the 3 tenancy in question, the shortness of litigation period in the Court below and such other circumstances.

2. Both the sides having favorably considered the suggestion of this Court graciously agreed to have the lis in the appeal amicably settled as under:

a) the judgment & decree in appeal are confirmed; pursuant to the same, the appellants/defendants undertake to this Court and to the respondent/plaintiff that they shall deliver back the suit premises peaceably and in usable condition, of course subject to natural wear & tear on or before the 31st day of December, 2021; they further undertake not to seek extension of the prescribed period in any circumstances whatsoever;

b) the appellants/defendants do undertake to the Court and to the respondent/plaintiff that they shall regularly pay the rents accruing due with the rate of enhancement as covenanted in the subject Agreement itself, on or before fifth day of every calendar month; the default for three consecutive months or three defaults within one year shall entitle the respondent/plaintiff to 4 exercise right of re-entry by putting the judgment & decree in execution subject to modification in this judgment; the delay shall carry interest at the rate of 3% per mensem on the rental amount due;

c) the appellants/defendants undertake that if they fail to deliver back the possession of the suit premises as mentioned above to the respondent/plaintiff within the stipulated period, they shall be liable to be proceeded against for contempt apart from incurring the liability of paying a penal rent of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only per day of overstaying which amount can be deducted from the refundable deposit; and,

d) the respondent/plaintiff shall return to the appellants/defendants the Advance Amount of Rs.10 Lakh (Ten Lakh Rupees) only, subject to the deductions admissible under the Agreement, simultaneously with they delivering back the possession of the suit premises.

3. Both the learned counsel having heard the dictation of the judgment by this Court both over regular phone & video conferring, have signified their consent orally to it's content & intent and they undertake to file 5 Memo of the parties, jointly or severally to the same effect within a week.

In terms of the above settlement, this appeal is disposed off.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE DH

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court