R James S/O Rajendran vs Parish Priest on 2 September, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

R James S/O Rajendran vs Parish Priest on 2 September, 2010

Bench: Jawad Rahim

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

BETWEEN:

AND :

 "V(B¥:_ASRI ISIIKANAGARAJAN, ADv., &
 I SvRI~I.RAl\jGAVASANTHI.D., ADv.,)

 "AIO,)1Q«1o8/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE xv ADDL. SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MAYOHALL LUNIT, BANGALORE, (SCCH--
:  IS), ALLOWING PETITION FILED U/S 27(2) (O) AND (1') of

 "K.R.ACT.

DATED THIS THE 02"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. 3uSTIc_EIIAwAD'RAHim'IV.i  I  I

HRRP NO. 214 OE 2OO97 4'

RJAMES,

S/O RAJENDRAN,"*~~E.( « I 
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS',  I 
BARLINE CHURCH COMP.')'UND_-»._  
OLD PENSION MO.H'A'L--LA, "  '
SANGALORE_6--O 0:18;;  ~ 'I I 
   ~     I  PETITIONER
(BY SR1 A;'(L»,PREMAKiIJMRA.RI ADv.,)

PARISH FiF!:IE_ST(.    I
REPR'E_SENTE«E)~ .5)',   ' 
REV ER MA RTIN 'i{.U'I'4AR,
ST.JOSEPH's 'CH!-.JR(Z'H &

_; E'R.,BRIA NDSQUARE,
I.'((("SA.NGALORE '+~------560 O01

***

THIS HRRP FILED U/S 46(1) OF KR ACT, AGAINST
HRC

ORDER DATED:26.08.2009, PASSED IN

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL
THIS DAY, THE MADE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

&'~Q"

...RESPONDENT



ORDER

This is tenant's revision petition against the"or_'t.l_ei*,,'in HRC No. 10108/2008 dated 26~O8--2009 on _t4-ii-ellifiilefowi Addl. Small causes Judge, Mayoha_l!~Li.nit, E'5anvg'ailrfj)re"'(S(_ZCH--u

19) allowing the petition and directing1ev*~iction._:"

2. This petition was hléard in pa"rt.a'r'ud-iadjiourned at the request of the respondenf:A'smc'ou:r]se'I:--_ Nowvpwlivth consent of both sides the matteris'ltal<énVl1ilp iténa_l_'..disposal.

3., 1111 ,gre,ve§l th.atm_t§1e respondent -- Parish Priest -Fr. Martin Kumar, initiated proceedings under .S'eVct»io'r1g22i(2)(r) and (0) of the Karnataka Rengt._§A/'--\\ctt,. 1999~seekin:g eviction of the petitioner from the dprenaiselsdin,éfquestion on the plea that respondent is the ltenantl p'a'§_k'i_vn__g'V~l§rr:'onthly rent of Rs.150/~. That, the premises V . was"""rea--sona'b|y and bonafidily required by the owner --~ 'V.'Addl"V.--,:lan»:.*.lordV"to demolish the building and construct a prayer hall .' f'or"t'he community and to build hall For the purpose of T "having Anganawadi for all children of the locality and for their education, which is one of the prime object of the owner/landlord - petitioner institution.

W 3

4. The tenant entered appearance and resisted the proceedings but despite it petition came to be allowed. The said order is questioned on the ground that the»..:o.rder impugned is without jurisdiction and consed:u'en~ti_y--.:__i.t:.;_:_i's,_ untenable in law. The trial Court fram'e~d..:'::a..:'point consideration to the effect whetherthe~~premises"i-nl'q'usesti;oi«1 provisions of Karnataka Rent.»Act_apply?"' V . l l

5. In this regard the cou'r;se_lllforipetitioner pointed out glulelstilon is religious and charitablevi_nstitu1t.ignV_" of Parish Priest of St. Josephis Sq-aure, Bangalore. It is not in dispute by a religious and charitable instyitutliottn. It'"is.._,not an individual / private property of the lbarrisra l§riest,"-but he is representative of the Church and he the present petition by his authorised V . representative Rev. Fr. Martin Kumar. Therefore, it admits no doubt that premises in question is a religious and

--' cvhalritlable institution. Since it is a religious and charitable T '"institution undoubtedly the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act do not apply, in view of embargo of provisions of Section 2 (3) (a) (ii) of that Act, which postulates;

(-%,/Q/V impugned order is passed, it is unenforceable and I___iab|e to be set aside.

7. In the result, the petition sucggédt:s.iifr'h'é %o'rdéf impugned is set aside. Of course.f;i'ibez'ty"'is T_1:V'he T landlord to avail such other Tremed'y.Aa's_ may:.b(e:'axfaiviaijieiited him in iaw for seeking eviction';«e.:"'i.

Sd/3}"

v+<      Tudge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court