Karnataka High Court
M/S Unicard Marketing Pvt Ltd vs Sri Inder Bohra on 22 July, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1960 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. M/s. Unicard Marketing
Private Limited,
A company incorporated
Under Companies Act, 1916,
Having its registered office at
No.18, (old No.199),
North Usman Road,
T Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
Represented by it's Manager,
Sri. Aravind Kumar,
Son of D.S.Gupta,
43 years.
2. M/s. Unicard Marketing
Private Limited,
Branch Office No.462/34,
12th Cross, 8th Main,
Willson Garden,
Bangalore - 560 027.
Represented by it's Manager,
Sri Aravind Kumar,
2
Son of D.S.Gupta,
43 years. ...APPELLANTS
(By Shri. A. Keshava Bhat, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. Inder Bohra,
Son of Sri. C.S.Pannalal,
Aged 53 years,
No.1015, Nagrathpet,
Bangalore - 560 002. ...RESPONDENT
( By Shri. S.V. Giridhar, Advocate)
*****
This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the Orders dated
21.02.2011 passed on I.A. in O.S.No.306/2008 on the file of the
XXV - Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, allowing the
I.A.04 filed under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court made
the following:
JUDGMENT
It is on record that the appellant was the sub-lessee under the respondent. The respondent having chosen to file a suit for ejectment, had also filed an application seeking a direction for 3 payment of rent during the pendency of the proceedings. That application having been allowed, the court had held that since there was no denial of the rate of rent claimed, the appellant would be liable to pay the rent for the period, during which he was under
occupation, especially, noticing that the appellant chose to hand over the keys and vacate possession of the premises voluntarily. Therefore, an order was passed on Interlocutory Application No.3 directing the appellant to pay a total sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as being the rent for the period from 1.1.2008 to 30.11.2010, by its order dated 6.12.2010.
2. The appellant then filed an application in I.A.No.4 seeking extension of time to make the payment claiming that the appellant was in dire financial straits and had also incidentally stated that an appeal was being filed before this court while not denying the amount payable. The statement made in the application in I.A.4 reads thus :
"Due to above said reasons, the defendant is not carrying on its business in Bangalore, consequently, suffered 4 huge loss and financially it is in very bad shape. Hence, it is not in a position to pay the entire amount of Rs.7,00,000/- within the month February 2011."
Therefore, the appellant was only pleading for more time to pay the amount of rent while not disputing the quantum or rate. However, the present appeal is filed on various grounds.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant is not categorical as to the rate of rent of the premises, which he was in occupation, if there was to be a dispute about the rate of rent. Therefore, the court below having directed the appellant to pay the rent for the period during which he was in occupation of the premises and if there is no serious dispute about the rate of rent, the payment of the same would not result in any unjust benefit to the respondent. The rent agreed upon is sought to be recovered. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal notwithstanding the several grounds that are urged, in the face of the circumstance that the learned counsel for the appellant does not seriously dispute the rate of rent. Hence, 5 though the court below has adopted a hybrid procedure in determining an issue between the parties, as there was clear admission by the appellant, there is no injustice caused in the amount being determined and the appellant being directed to pay the amount.
Consequently, the appeal is without merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv