SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Kar) 547

H.G.RAMESH
SMT. SAROJAMMA – Appellant
Versus
SRI. K. M. VENKATESH – Respondent


Advocates:
ARVIND DESAI, C.M.Desia, Pradeep Naik K.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition by the defendant/tenant in the suit in S. C. No. 161/2003 is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 30. 10. 2003 passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore directing the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent/landlord within three months.

( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the record of the trial court.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts leading to filing of this revision petition are as follows: the respondent/plaintiff had leased the suit premises to the petitioner/defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600/- for a period of two years and one month as per Ex. P-1 the lease deed dated 10. 3. 1997. Accordingly, the lease got determined by efflux of time on 10. 4. 1997. A notice of termination of lease dated 12. 8. 99 was also issued as per Ex. P2. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 9263/99 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for possession of the suit property and for damages. The City Civil Court, in view of the judgment of this Court in RAMESH P. SETH vs. KRISHNAMURTHY (ILR 2002 KAR 565) ordered for return of the














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top