IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA HOUSE RENT REVISION PETITION NO.26/2017 BETWEEN:
Dr. R.P.S. VARMA S/O. LATE SHRI RAM LAL VARMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.MR-14 BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BANGALORE – 560 076.
(BY Dr. R.P.S.VARMA, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND:
R. MANJUNATH S/O. G.RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.23, 7TH CROSS, S.R. NAGAR BANGALORE.
(BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER S.46 OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2017 PASSED IN EX.P.NO.551/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE OF COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE, ORDERING ISSUE DELIVERY WARRANT AGIANST THE PETITIONER, PRAYING TO GRANT TWO MONTHS’ TIME TO VACATE AND HANDOVER VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PETITION PREMISES TO THE RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition was filed on 07.04.2017 against an order dated 30.03.2017 passed in Ex.P. No.551/2017 by the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. By the said Order, delivery warrant was issued against the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule premises.
2. HRC No.617/2001 was instituted under S.27 (2)(a) and (2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act') by the respondent against the petitioner. The petition having been allowed on 27.06.2008, under S.27 (2)(a) and (2)(r) of the Act, by the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, HRRP No.196/2008 was instituted. The said petition prosecuted by the petitioner – party-in-person was dismissed on 09.09.2010, granting two months’ time to the petitioner to quit, vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. SLP No.30564/2010 filed was rejected by the Apex Court vide Order dated 17.01.2017.
3. As the possession of the premises was not handed over, the respondent filed Ex.P. No.551/2017 against the petitioner. A delivery warrant having been issued therein on 30.03.2017, this petition was filed, confining the relief for grant of two months’ time to the petitioner to vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises to the respondent.
4. On 12.04.2017, the petitioner – party-in- person submitted that the petition is confined only for grant of 2 months’ time to vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule premises to the respondent. He submitted that he will vacate the petition premises in all respects and handover key of the same before this Court itself to the respondent / landlord. Recording the said submission, the case was adjourned to today to enable the petitioner to handover vacant possession of the premises in question.
5. The petitioner submitted that he needs further time of two months to quit and handover the possession of the petition premises.
6. Sri Abhinav Ramanand, learned advocate for the respondent opposed grant of any further time. He submitted that the petitioner has not paid the rent / occupation charges from 2001 onwards.
7. It is unnecessary to record any finding with regard to non payment of the rent / occupancy charges by the petitioner, who submits that the security deposit paid by him has not been refunded.
8. As the period granted to the petitioner in HRRP No.196/2008 vide order dated 09.09.2010 has expired and as SLP No.30564/2010 filed by the petitioner was rejected on 17.01.2017 by the Apex Court, the possession of the premises having not been delivered, the respondent is justified in filing Ex.P. No.551/2017 and the Execution Court is justified in ordering issuance of delivery warrant.
9. The petitioner did not point out any error or irregularity in the matter of passing of the order in Ex.P. No.551/2017 by the Execution Court. As there is no illegality committed by the Court below in the matter of issuing of the delivery warrant, there is no justification to entertain this petition.
Consequently the petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*