Shri N Uday vs Shri H M Nataraja on 7 November, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri N Uday vs Shri H M Nataraja on 7 November, 2014

Bench: C.R. Kumaraswamy

                         1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

  DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014

                     BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARASWAMY

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1810 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

SHRI N.UDAY
S/O N.NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.104/B, 1ST 'R' BLOCK
20TH 'A' MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALOR-560 010

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:

NO.361, 10TH CROSS
D-GROUP LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK
LINIGADEVANAHALLI
VISWANEEDAM POST
ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE                           ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI.H.M.NATARAJA
   S/O MALLIKARJUNAIAHA
   AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
   R/AT NO.59 (OLD NO.5
   SUBSEQUENTLY NUMBERED
   AS 110) SUBEDAR CHATRAM
   ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009
                        2

  PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:

  NO.20, NMH ROAD
  VISVESWARAPURAM
  BANGALORE-560 004

2. SHRI.M.R.SHANAKARANARAYANA
   S/O RANGANATHA SETTY
   AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
   R/AT NO.1, NEELAPATHI LANE
   COTTONPET, BANGALORE-560 053

3. SHRI.M.UDAYASHANKAR
   S/O H.MALLIKARJUNAIAH
   AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
   R/AT NO.1, 1ST FLOOR
   'SURESH APARTMENTS'
   CAUVERY NAGAR
   BANGALORE

  PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:

  NO.182, 15TH CROSS
  2ND STAGE, 2ND MAIN
  MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
  BANGALORE-560 086            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.B.N.JAYADEVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)

    THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96(1) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED:28.09.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.
7432/2004 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FILED FOE EJECTMENT.

     THIS RFA IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3

                       JUDGMENT

The appellant and his Counsel are present. The respondents and their counsel are present.

2. Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC is filed. Execution on the compromise petition is admitted by the parties.

3. Compromise Petition reads as under:

"The appellant and the respondents respectfully submit as follows:

1. The appellant and the respondents have at the intervention of well wishers settled the matter amicably between themselves and seek leave of this Hon'ble Court to file this Compromise Memo for acceptable.

2. That the appellant and the respondents admit that the respondents are the tenants of the suit schedule property and having been inducted under a Deed of Lease dated 06.05.1999 registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, between the appellant then a minor represented by his father and his mother.

3. That subsequent to the said Deed of Lease, a MOU dated 8.5.1999 was entered into with regard to receipt of additional funds and payment of maintenance charges.

4. That the appellant on the ground that the respondents have defaulted in the payment of monthly rents and maintenance charges, filed suit for ejectment in O.S.No.7432/2004, contending that he has terminated the tenancy of the respondents in respect of the suit schedule property and the said suit has now been dismissed and the appellant has now preferred this appeal.

5. That the appellant and the respondents have now agreed that the termination of tenancy of the respondents on the ground of non-compliance by the respondents of the terms regarding payment of monthly rent and maintenance charges is incorrect in view of the specific commitments of the appellant, his father and mother in the MOU dated 8.5.1999, accepting the terms as stated in the MOU dated 8.5.1999, the appellant accepts that there are no arrears of rent or maintenance charges payable till date.

Further, the respondents agree that in view of 5 the appellant accepting that there are no arrears of rent or maintenance charges payable till date, i.e. 31.10.2014, the respondents agree that they will not seek for refund of additional deposit given by them to the appellant in the said MOU. However, the appellant confirms that he is liable to refund Rs.10 lakhs paid under Deed of Lease dated 6.5.1999, on the terms stated therein.

6. That in view of the reciprocal understandings arrived at between the appellant and the respondents, the respondents agree that they will pay the rents as agreed to between the parties in terms of the Deed of Lease dated 6.5.1999 and MOU dated 8.5.1999 with periodical enhancements and as such, the respondents shall pay a composite rent of Rs.53,245/- per month commencing from 01.11.2014 which shall be subject to periodical enhancements as agreed to in the Deed of Lease dated 6.5.1999.

7. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the appellant withdraws the termination tenancy notice dated 5.7.2004 given by the appellant and as such, 6 the respondents continue to be tenants of the schedule property in terms of the Deed of Lease dated 6.5.1999.

WHEREFORE, the parties pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this Compromise Memo and dispose of the above appeal accordingly and the parties shall bear their own costs all through out in the ends of justice and equity."

This Regular First Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

Sd/-

JUDGE LB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court