IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY C.R.P. NO.237/2017 BETWEEN:
MR. ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN S/O LATE KHADER KHAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.A-85, OLD NO.225 NAWAB HYDER ALI MAIN ROAD KALASIPALYAM BENGALURU – 560 002 … PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. MOHAMMED SIRAJUL HASSAN S/O LATE A.H. KHAISER AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. MRS. SHAHEEN RAHMAN W/O MOHAMMED SIRAJUL HASSAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.574 30TH ‘B’ CROSS, TILAK NAGAR JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 041 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.A.H. RAZVI, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2017 PASSED IN S.C. NO.15417/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, BENGALURU (SCCH 19) PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION, ARREARS OF RENT AND DAMAGES.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The respondents herein filed a suit in S.C. No.15417/2014 on the file of XV Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, against the petitioner herein, for ejectment and the same came to be decreed by order dated 28.03.2017. Against this order the defendant who is petitioner herein filed this petition.
2. The petitioner has taken two grounds, first one in support of jural relationship and second is jurisdiction. He has also taken another ground that the demand notice issued by the plaintiffs has not been served on him and also not been produced and the learned Judge has decreed the suit without observing this.
3. With regard to the above circumstances, I perused the grounds and the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge at Para Nos.17, 18, 19, 24 and 25 of the judgment passed in S.C. No.15417/2014. In Para No.24, the learned trial Judge has observed as under:
“The defendant has also taken contention that he has not received any termination notice as per Ex.P4 to P6. He has also taken contention that the acknowledgement card is manipulated by the plaintiffs. The defendant himself by leading his evidence has produced the copy of legal notice sent by the plaintiffs marked as Ex.D.2 and he has given reply to the said notice dated 27.10.2014 is marked as Ex.D.3 and postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.D.5 to show that the reply notice was served on the plaintiffs. On one count, the defendant has taken contention that no notice was served upon him, but he himself has replied to the said notice.”
4. In the light of the above, it is clear that the grounds urged by the petitioner herein, has been taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge.
5. Learned trial Judge also states in Para No.18 of the judgment that the petitioner himself in his cross- examination has voluntarily deposed that “said Smt. Zarina Begum has given one year time”. According to me, the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge considering this piece of evidence of the petitioner, is sound and proper. No grounds are made out under Section 18 of Small Causes Court Act to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Judge. Hence, petition is hereby dismissed.
6. Petitioner submits that he is running a small petty shop for his livelihood and he finds very difficult to shift the business to any other premises. Hence, he seeks some time to vacate and handover the possession of the said premises.
7. Considering his submission, by exercising the discretionary power under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, I grant a year’s time to the petitioner to vacate and handover the premises to the respondents herein. That is on or before 30.06.2018 the petitioner shall vacate and handover the possession of the premises to the respondents and shall not induct any 3rd party interest.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBS*