Karnataka High Court
Sri S K Nagesh vs Sri K P Narayana Setty on 25 July, 2011
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARN, ATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 25" day of July, 2011 BRelore THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE Bf ULU VAD? t RAMESH - . Regular First Appeal 686 of 204 Between: stiS K Nagesh, 43 yrs S/o Kishnappa, # 386 24" B Cross, BSK I Stage a Bangalore 560.070 oS Appellant (By Sri T orinivasan: Ady.) And: l Sri K- P Naty ana Ss Sty. 79 yrs, Sia VD i > Papal jah Set ty 2 Smt Anitha-Prak ash, 40 yes Wie Naga Pr 'akash Both are t/a #. 42,7 e ' B Main 4® Block! Jayanagar : Ban galore. S60 BV Respondents (By Sri S Gangadina ef Aithal, Ady. Appe al is filed under $.96 of the Code of s. V ' Procedure praying _ fo set-aside' the judgement and decree dated 71.2011 in OS 7532/2008 "Defore the I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Ju dee - Danvalure mo, oa a se The Appeal coming on for Admission tis day, Court delivered the following: ot JUDGMENT
Appeal is by the tenant agaist the order oF -ejectment passed by the HT Addi. ¢ ity Civil & Sessions Jud; ze, , Bangalore in as 75: 32/2008.
On a monthly rent of Rs 28 5.0080: appettant is said 10 have taken possession of the residential pretnuses fon the reson ndents. Towards payment of rentals Ss st Gna issued ~ wére dishonored and immediately landlord i 5 " taken ote 8 1 file ed case under the Negotiable instruments Act. "The premises was diten on lease by the appellant during 2005, um April 2008)-the "defendant lenant appears to be irregular in payment oF rental ' sd that j is the reason for the plainuffs to file the sui 7 for ejecement After due notice as per S.108 of the Transfer or Property Act: senaiicy was terminated. Defendant also admitted the ~ monthly lenangy, - Looking at Ex.P4 - notice regarding termination of Gama. the trial court having opined that there is due termination of : tenancy , has ordered for electment.
. on 5 yar ted The main contention of the appellant before this court is, he has nol received the notice. When the matter was posted before «his -Coust on 7.6.2011, counsel for the appellant has undertaken © deposi the arrears of rent and, also in this regard, respondent also a greed i) file ar undertaking not to file execution petition til 26 S.20Eb to enable the defendant to pay the arrears of rent, 'Therealtter, the inatter was posted on 28.6.2011, 177.2011 and oth 6.7201 I. fk 18 noted by my learned predecessor that there iS Ho justification to gr interim order and thereby, has given iets yf te the re spondent fo execute the order.
For on comiplinge of the und ortaking to deposit arrears of rental which is admit ted, appe sal ig | ' dismissed, with costs, not only on merits but also based on ie con 'on the part of the defendant in defying the undertaking giv en 'nefore this Court. However, another fifteen days time is given to vacaie the Aremises, subject to filing an undertaking within one week, tospay the entire arrears of rent.
An"