IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

R.S.A.No.2022/2018(EJT)

BETWEEN:

RAJU B

S/O BASAVARAJU (LATE)

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

PRESENTLY R/AT #715,

NEAR BUS STAND

LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE,

VARUNA HOBLI

MYSORE TALUK-570 028.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI MOHAN B K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NILESH O JAIN

S/O OMPRAKASH

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

R/AT #9/6, YELLAMMA GARDEN

LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR

BANGALORE-560 027.

2. NANJEGOWDA M S

S/O SIDDEGOWDA (LATE)

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

R/AT #2 B-5, VASU LAYOUT

RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR

MYSORE-570 017.

2

3. DHIRAJ HEGDE

S/O K A HEGDE

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

R/AT #51 3^RD MAIN

3^RD CROSS, BANK COLONY

BOGADI, MYSORE-570 026.

4. H D SANATH KUMAR

S/O H B DHARAMENDRAPPA (LATE)

R/AT #780, ‘MEGHAKASHA’

10^TH MAIN 2^ND CROSS

1^ST STAGE VIJAYANAGAR

MYSORE-570 017.

5. DR. M N RAJAGOPAL SHETTY

S/O NARAYANAPPA (LATE)

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

R/AT #3127, ‘SWARA’

VIVEKANANDA ROAD,

2^ND CROSS SOUTHERN EXTN.,

KOLLEGAL-517 440.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. LEELA P DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.04.2018

PASSED IN R.A.No.188/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MYSURU, DISMISSING THE

APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

DATED 19.03.2013 PASSED IN O.S.No.1496/2011 ON THE

FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL FIRST CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,

MYSORE.

THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY

THROUGH

VIDEO

CONFERENCING,

THE

COURT

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

decree dated 28.04.2018 passed in R.A.No.188/2014

by the II Additional District Judge, Mysore, dismissing

the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree

dated 19.03.2013 passed in O.S.No.1496/2011 by the

Principal First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore.

2.

In

order

to

avoid

confusion

and

overlapping, the parties are addressed in accordance

with the rankings held by them before the trial court.

3.

Originally, plaintiffs filed a suit against the

defendant seeking eviction of the defendant from the

suit schedule premises by terminating tenancy in

O.S.No.1496/2011 before the Principal First Civil

Judge and JMFC Mysore. The said suit was decreed on

19-3-2013. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant

filed a regular appeal in R.A.No.188/2013 before the

4

II Additional District Judge, Mysore. The said appeal

came

to

be

dismissed

on

28-4-2018

thereby

confirming the judgment and decree passed by the

learned trial judge.

4. The facts of the case are concerned,

O.S.No.1496/2011 was instituted by the plaintiffs for

the eviction of the defendant from the suit premises

by terminating tenancy and defendant has filed suit in

O.S.No.126/2011 for permanent injunction. Both the

suits were clubbed and evidence was recorded and by

common judgment the suit of the defendant in OS

No.126/2011

came

to

be

dismissed.

The

said

judgment was not challenged by defendant and it has

attained finality. However, regular appeal was filed

against

the

judgment

and

decree

passed

in

O.S.No.1496/2011. The operative portion of the

judgment of the trial court is as under:

5

“The suit in O.S. 126/2011 is dismissed.

The suit in O.S.1496/2011 is decreed with cost.

The defendant in O.S.1496/2011 is hereby

directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession

of the suit schedule property within two months

from the date of this order in favour of the

plaintiffs. Failing which, the plaintiffs are at liberty

to get back the possession through the process of

the court.

The defendant shall also pay arrears of rentals

of Rs.2,000/- to the plaintiffs for the period of

November

2010 to August 2011.

There shall be separa