1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

HRRP.No.11/2017

BETWEEN:

MR. NAZAR KHAN,

S/O NOORULLA KHAN,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

R/AT No.11, 2^ND CROSS, 4^TH MAIN,

SHAMANNA GOWDA LAYOUT,

ULSOOR, BANGALORE - 560 008.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUD.B.THUMBIGI, ADV.)

AND:

1.

SMT. SRILAKSHMI,

W/O LATE R.SEENAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

2.

SRI. DINESH,

D/O LATE SEENAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

3.

SMT. MANJULA,

D/O LATE SEENAPPA,

W/O NAGARAJ,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

4.

SMT. VANITHA,

D/O LATE R.SEENAPPA,

W/O SHIVAKUMAR,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

2

5.

SRI. MANI.S.

S/O LATE R.SEENAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

ALL R/O No.2, D-II STREET,

SUNDAR MUDALIAR STREET,

ULSOOR, BANGALORE - 560 008.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RADHA.R. FOR SRI.T.K.RAJAGOPALA, ADV.,

FOR C/R-1 & R-2 AND R-3 TO R-5)

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF

KARNATAKA RENT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED

30.11.2016 PASSED IN H.R.C.No.48/2016 ON THE FILE OF

THE

CHIEF

JUDGE,

COURT

OF

SMALL

CAUSES

AT

BENGALURU,

ALLOWING

THE

PETITION

FILED

UNDER

SECTION 27(2)(a),(r) and 31(1)(a) OF THE KARNATAKA

RENT ACT, 1999.

THIS HRRP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1.

Sri.Nazar Khan, the tenant, has preferred this revision

challenging the order of the Chief Judge, Court of Small

Causes, Bengaluru dated 30.11.2016, by which, he has been

directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the

schedule premises to the petitioners and has also been

directed to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.7,500/- for the

period from March, 2016 to May, 2016 and also continue to

3

pay the rent at the said rate from June, 2016, till he vacates

the premises.

2.

The respondents herein filed an eviction petition under

Section 27(2) (a) (r) and Section 31(1)(a) of the Karnataka

Rent Act, 1999. It was their case that schedule ‘A’ property

i.e., premises bearing No.11 measuring 22 ft x 32 ft was the

subject matter of a partition suit in O.S.No.52/1999 filed by

Smt.Muniyamma against her husband Sri.R.Seenappa. It was

their case that a preliminary decree was passed in the said

suit

holding

that

premises

bearing

No.11

measuring

22 ft x 32 ft be allotted into equal shares to Smt.Muniyamma

and Sri.Seenappa.

3.

They also stated that Smt.Muniyamma had thereafter

initiated

proceedings

to

draw

up

a

Final

decree

in

F.D.P.No.1/2009 and a final decree was also drawn up by

which half a share of the property bearing 22 ft x 32 ft ie.,

the property measuring 22 ft x 16 ft was allotted to the

petitioners. This property allotted to them was described as

schedule ‘B’ property and was the subject matter of the

eviction petition.

4

4.

It was stated that the petitioner was inducted as a

tenant by the plaintiff Smt.Muniyamma and by virtue of the

final decree passed in F.D.P.No.1/2009, they had become

owners of the petition property and were entitled to seek for

possession. They stated that since they had a bonafide

requirement of the premises, they had issued a quit notice,

which was returned with an endorsement ‘door locked’ and

since there was no compliance of the demand made, they

were constrained to file the eviction petition.

5.

The petitioner entered appearance and contested the

proceedings. He admitted that he had been inducted into the

entire

property

by

Smt.Muniyamma.

He

stated

that

Smt.Muniyamma had also informed him that there was a

partition suit ie., O.S.No.52/1999 pending between herself

and her husband Sri.Seenappa in respect of the premises

which had been leased to him and in the suit, a preliminary

decree had been passed in which she had been granted half a

share.

6.

The respondent also admitted that pursuant to the

preliminary decree, a final decree proceeding had also

5