Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. V SRISHANANDA, J
SRI NAMRUTH RAJ S SHETTY – Appellant
Versus
SRI M S SUBRAMANYA MALATESH – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tenancy and eviction dispute outlined. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. jurisdiction issues regarding rental laws. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. court's determination on jurisdiction and rent. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 4. revision petition dismissed with time to vacate. (Para 34) |
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Jaysham Jayasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Venkatachalapathy, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Revision Petitioner is the defendant in S.C No.96/2023 on the file of the IX Addl. Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru , challenging the validity of the judgment dated 02.07.2025.
3. Operative portion of the order reads as under:“The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.
The defendant is hereby directed to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this order. In the event of failure of the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property, the plaintiff is at liberty to get delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property by due process of law.The plaintiff is granted lib
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
