M/S. Computek India Ltd vs Smt.Hemalatha Basavaraj on 25 September, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S. Computek India Ltd vs Smt.Hemalatha Basavaraj on 25 September, 2014

Bench: C.R. Kumaraswamy

                        1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

  DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014

                     BEFORE

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

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1188 OF 2014


BETWEEN:

1. M/S COMPUTEK INDIA LTD.,
   NO.29/2A & 3, NANJAPPA
   MANSION (ANNEX) K.H.ROAD
   BANGALORE-560 027
   REP BY ITS
   MANAGING DIRECTOR

2. SRI.SHASHANK SHAH
   S/O LATE M.G.SHAH
   AGE:58 YEARS
   AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
   M/S COMPUTEK INDIA LTD.,
   NO.29/2A & 3, NANJAPPA
   MANSION (ANNEX) K.H.ROAD
   BANGALORE-560 027                ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.K.SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.K.SATISH.GRAIKAR-ADVOCATES)

AND:

SMT.HEMALATHA BASAVARAJ
W/O LATE BASAVARAJ
AGE: 55 YEARS
                            2

R/AT NO.381/12, "SANJEEVINI"
3RD CROSS, 7RH BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 082                      ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.M.J.ALVA ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)


     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96   READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE-1 OF CPC.,
AGAINST      THE      JUDGMENT         AND           DECREE
DATED:21.06.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2768/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE X-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE,    BANGALOREM,     DECREEING     THE        SUIT   FOR
EJECTMENT, RECOVERY OF VACANT POSSESSION AND
MESNE PROFITS.

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


                     JUDGMENT

Appellant No. 2 is present. Appellant No.1 is represented by appellant No.1 which is a company.

Learned counsel for the appellants is present.

Respondent and her counsel is present. Joint memo is filed. Execution by the appellants and respondent on 3 the joint memo is admitted before the Court. Joint memo dated 25.09.2014 reads as under:

"The appellants and the respondent beg to file this joint memo in the above appeal as follows:

1. The Appellants have filed the above appeal against the judgment and decree dated:21.06.2014 passed by the court below in O.S.No.2768/2011. The Trial court had granted Three months time to the Appellants to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the Respondent which has already expired.

2. The Appellants have now paid the sum of Rs.4 Lakhs to the respondent through D.D.No.467133 dated:25.09.2014 towards arrears of rent as per the appellants' calculation and the Respondent has received the same under protest towards part of the arrears of rent without prejudice to her rights to claim the balance of arrears of rent and the damages in the Trial Court in separate and independent proceedings.

3. Subject to the condition of reserving liberty to the respondent to claims arrears of the rent and the damages in independent proceedings in accordance with law, 24 months time from this day is granted to the appellants to voluntarily vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent impugned judgment is accepted.

4. The Appellants shall not cause damage to the suit schedule property and they shall not induct any third party in possession of the same and they shall not seek any further extension of time under any circumstances.

Wherefore, the appellants and respondent pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to extend the time granted by the Trial Court to the Appellants by another 24 (twenty four) months from this day for voluntarily vacating and delivering vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent by making payment of damages leaving open her rights to claim the arrears of rent and the damages/mesne profits in separate proceedings in accordance with law, in the ends of justice".

This Regular First Appeal is disposed of in terms of the joint memo.

Sd/-

JUDGE JTR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court