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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 57683

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.727 OF 2022 (POS)

BETWEEN :

SRI.M.KANTILAL JAIN

S/O LATE MITTALAL

AGED 53 YEARS

PROPRIETOR

M/S. AMARAJYOTHI PAPER CO.,

NO.125/9/1, BALAJI COMPLEX

SULTANPET, BENGALURU-560053.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.C.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)

AND :

SRI.R.ASHOK

S/O LATE M.C.RANGANNA

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

R/AT NO.124, 7TH MAIN

AVALAHALLI, B.D.A EXTENSION

3RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI

BENGALURU-560050.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.LEKHA CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR

SRI.RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADV.)

THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2021

PASSED IN O.S.NO.570/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LXVII

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,

PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION.

THIS R.F.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

Appeal by the defendant, challenging the judgment

and decree passed by the 67th Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge (CCH-68), Bengaluru in O.S.No.570/2021

on 30th October 2021 whereby suit of the plaintiff came to

be decreed and an order of ejectment was passed directing

the defendant from vacating and deliver the vacant

possession to the plaintiff within three months from

October 30, 2021 and also directed the defendant to pay a

sum of Rs.13,000/- p.m., towards arrears of rent from May

2018, till the filing of the suit.

2.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment in

O.S.No.570/2021. The defendant though served with the

notice, did not appear before the Trial Court and did not

file

written

statement

within

the

stipulated

time.

Thereafter, the Trial Court considered the materials placed

on record by the plaintiff and formulated the following

points for consideration:

3

1.

Whether the plaintiff proves that he has

duly terminated the tenancy of the

defendant

over

the

suit

schedule

property?

2.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the

reliefs sought for?

3.

What Order or Decree?

3.

Taking note of the evidence placed by the

plaintiff in the form of affidavit and the documents placed

on behalf of the plaintiff, recorded the findings on points

No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the

plaintiff.

4.

Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant

has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:

The impugned judgment and decree passed

by the court below is opposed to law, facts

and evidence in the case.

The court below has failed to consider both

oral and documentary evidence in proper

perspective and has failed to draw proper

4

inferences from admitted and proved facts

and those inferences drawn by the court

below are erroneous.

The court below has committed serious

error in not providing sufficient opportunity

to the appellant to file written statement

and set up his defence so that he could

have cross-examined PW-1 and produced

documents and substantiated his defence in

the suit. Due to Covid-19 situation the

appellant could not contact his counsel, give

instructions to file written statement and

cross

examine

PW-1.

The

denial

of

opportunity to the appellant has resulted in

miscarriage of justice.

The respondent filed the suit for ejectment

of the appellant from the suit schedule

property.

The

period

of

tenancy

has

expired. The respondent does not have

interest to renew the tenancy of the

appellant. The appellant continued to be in

possession of the premises without lawful

authority. The appellant did not keep the

premises in good and tenantable condition,

kept under lock and key since several

5

months, premises required for his personal

use and occupation, failed to pay rentals,

appellant failed to keep up his promise of

vacating the premises and dodged the

respondent. The appellant submits that the

respondent failed to provide basic amenities

such as water, electricity etc., and thereby

the appellant was forced to keep the

premises under lock and key. Thus the suit

involved important issues, which could not

be agitated due to denial of opportunity to

the appellant.

The suit was filed on 21.1.2021, the

evidence was commenced on 5.10.2021 and

the entire period was spent in Covid-19

situation and the court proceedings was

seriously affected, the clients were not

allowed and even counsel were not allowed

to enter the court premises and in that

period only the suit was decided. Even the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble

Court extended the period of limitation up

to 3.10.2021 considering the pandemic

situation. The lower court failed to extend

the said benefit to the appellant.

6

By the impugned judgment and decree, the

appellant is directed to vacate the premises

within a period of three months and to pay

arrears of rent with interest. Irreparable

loss and injury would be caused to the

appellant if the impugned judgment and

decree I not set

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top