Sri Syed Ziaul Hasan vs Mrs Shamim Hussain on 8 March, 2016

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Syed Ziaul Hasan vs Mrs Shamim Hussain on 8 March, 2016

Bench: A. N. Venugopala Gowda

                           -1-




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2016

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A. N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.161 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

SRI.SYED ZIAUL HASAN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O.SYED SYEEDUL HASAN
R/AT 1ST FLOOR, "HAMD"
NO.3/13, BERLIE STREET CROSS
LANGFORD TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 025
                                     ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.G.K.BHAT, ADV.,)

AND:

MRS.SHAMIM HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
W/O. ABDUL HAMID MUNSHI
PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF
"HAMD" NO.3/13
BERLIE STREET CROSS
LANGFORD TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 025
REPRESENTED BY HER
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR.TAYUB HUSSAIN
                                   ... RESPONDENT
                           -2-




(BY SRI.POONACHA.C.M, ADV., FOR C/RESPONDENT)

      THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
06.11.2015 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.7644/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH NO.23), ALLOWING
THE I.A.NO.3 FILED U/O 12 RULE 6 OF CPC., AND
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION.

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

                     JUDGMENT

The respondent is the landlord and the appellant is the tenant, in a portion of the premises bearing No.3/13 situated at Berlie Street Cross, Langford Town, Bengaluru. After terminating the tenancy and the respondent having not vacated and delivered the possession of the said premises, OS No.7644/2014 was filed in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, to pass judgment and decree of ejectment. Written statement having been filed, I.A.No.3 was filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, to decree the suit. Said I.A. having not been decided, WP No.2978/2015 was filed, to direct the -3- Trial Court to decide I.A.No.3, within the stipulated period. The said writ petition was disposed of and the Trial Court was directed to consider, the I.A. Upon consideration, I.A.No.3 was allowed on 06.11.2015 and consequently, the suit was decreed, directing the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff, within a period of four months. Assailing the said decree, this appeal was filed on 28.01.2016.

2. On 01.03.2016, in order to enable the learned advocates, to obtain instructions and report, as to the amicable settlement, if any, learned advocates submitted that the parties have entered into a mutual agreement.

3. Both the appellant and the GPA holder of the respondent are present before the Court and were identified by their learned advocates. -4-

4. The appellant has undertaken to pay for the continued use and occupation of the plaint schedule premises, damages at the rate of Rs.20,000/-p.m, w.e.f 01.04.2016 and agreed to voluntarily quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule premises on or before 30.06.2017, to the respondent. The settlement which has been entered into between the parties is lawful and hence is accepted.

In view of the above, it is unnecessary to decide this appeal on its merit and the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. However, time to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises, in pursuance of the impugned decree, is extended upto 30.06.2017. The appellant shall pay damages at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month i.e., for the period commencing from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017 and vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises. -5-

The appellant shall file an undertaking in the registry, within a period of four weeks ie., undertaking to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month till the date of handing over of possession voluntarily, without making the respondent to file an execution petition to obtain the delivery warrant and recover the vacant possession.

Needless to observe that on the date the possession of the premises is delivered, the respondent shall refund the security deposit paid ie., Rs.5,00,000/-, by deducting the arrears of damages, if any.

Since the parties have entered into a settlement, Court fee paid, be refunded, in terms of Section 66(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958.

Sd/-

JUDGE GH

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court