1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO.3210 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

MEHRUNNISA THARA,

W/O HANIF THARA,

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

R/AT NO.140 OLD THARAGUPET,

BENGALURU -560002.

REPRESENTED BY HER HUSBAND

AND SPA HOLDER

HANIF THARA,

S/O LATE KADER,

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

NO.140, OLD THARAGUPET,

BENGALURU-560 001.

SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.RAJESWARA P N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

AHMED YOUNUS KHAN,

S/O MOKTHAR KHAN,

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

R/AT NO.79 THARAVILLA,

FLAT BEARING NO.B-1, 2^ND FLOOR,

3^RD CROSS, RANOJI RAO ROAD,

BASAVANAGUDI,

BENGALURU-560004

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. N J RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THAT

THE ORDER DTD.14.1.2020 ANNEXURE-A REJECTING THE

EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS NOT

MAINTAINABLE

PASSED

IN

EXECUTION

PETITION

NO.1648/2019 BY THE HONBLE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY

CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 69) AND ETC.

2

THIS

PETITION

COMING

ON

FOR

PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL

HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

Petitioner being the Decree Holder in Execution

Petition No.1648/2019 is

invoking the writ jurisdiction

of this Court for assailing the order dated 14.01.2020, a

copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the learned XLVIII

Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru city has dismissed the

execution proceedings as being not maintainable.

2. After service of notice, the respondent-JDr

having entered appearance through his counsel, resists

the writ petition making submission in justification of the

impugned order and the reasons on which it has been

structured.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, this Court grants

indulgence in the matter as under and for the following

reasons:

(a) Petitioner lady being a senior citizen has filed a

suit

for

possession

in

O.S.No.5346/2016

and

the

respondent being the defendant tenant is opposing the

same by filing the Written Statement; there is absolutely

3

no dispute as to the vinculum juris of landlord and tenant

between the parties arising from the lease deed in

question; suit having been decreed on 02.01.2018, the

said decree having been set aside, matter came to be

remanded for trial afresh vide judgment dated 13.12.2018

rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

respondent’s RFA No.541/2018; the said Judge had

reserved liberty to the petitioner herein to apply for a

direction to the respondent-tenant to deposit the arrears of

rents.

(b) In terms of the liberty reserved in above RFA

judgment, petitioner made an application which was

favoured by the learned Judge of the Court below vide

order dated 12.04.2019 and it’s operative portion reads as

under:

“I.A.No.5 filed by the plaintiff under

Section 151 of C.P.C., is hereby allowed. The

defendant is directed to pay the admitted rent

of Rs.17,640/- per month from July 2016 till

disposal of the case.”

(c) Respondent’s Writ Petition No.22063/2019

challenging the direction in the above order for payment of

arrears of rent came to be dismissed by this Court vide

judgment dated 26.06.2019 wherein the operative portion

is phrased as under:

4

“In the above circumstances, this writ

petition being devoid of merits, stands rejected;

however, to safeguard the interest of both the

sides, the amount payable and accruing under

the impugned order shall be deposited in the

Court below forthwith, subject to outcome of the

suit.

It is needless to mention that discretion

lies with the Court below to release some

reasonable portion of the amount to be

deposited in favour of the respondent if

grounds therefor are made out.”

The above order wa