IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA R.S.A. NO.103/2017 [RES] BETWEEN:
DR. SRIDHARA ACHAR, AGED 72 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI. U. NARASIMHA ACHAR, R/O. NO.39, THEOBALD ROAD, NAZARBAD, MYSORE, ALSO R/O. SHOP PREMISES NO.19/3, & 19/4, OLD NO.682, PADMA CLINIC, RENUKACHARYA TEMPLE STREET, K.R.MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 024.
(By SRI. S. K. ACHARYA, ADV.) AND:
... APPELLANT SMT. INDIRA RAJASHEKAR, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O. LATE M. B. RAJASHEKAR, C/O. SMT. RATI SRINIVAS, NO.L-302, MANTRI PARADISE, ARAKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 028,.
... RESPONDENT (By SRI. A. V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADV. FOR THE CAVEAT RESPONDENT) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 17.12.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.217/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.601/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. FIRST CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC., MYSORE THE APPELLANT RESTRICTS THIS APPEAL IN SO FAR AS EVICTION ONLY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Defendant in O.S.601/2012 on the file of the I Additional First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore, has preferred this second appeal challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, and it was confirmed by the first appellate Court.
2. In this Regular Second Appeal, appellant and respondent after negotiating the matter in the presence of the learned Counsels appearing for them, have got the dispute relating to the suit schedule property settled amicably by reducing the terms and conditions of settlement into writing by way of filing a detailed compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and it is taken on record.
Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise petition which reads as under :
“1. That the appellant has agreed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent land lady on or before 31/12/2018.
2. The appellant will not seek for further extension of time and he will not drive the land lady respondent to file execution petition for enforcement of decree of eviction.
3. The appellant will not sub-let or under let or induct any person or third party into the premises and he will quietly vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises without causing any damage to it.
4. That till he vacates and hands over the possession of the suit schedule premises the appellant shall pay to the respondent land lady a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards damages on or before 5th of every calendar month commencing from 01/08/2017 till 31/12/2018.
5. The appellant shall pay all the arrears of electricity charges and other charges payable by him and shall continue to pay the same as and when it becomes due and will hand over the receipts to the custody of the respondent land lady at the time of vacating the suit schedule premises.
6. The appellant has further agreed that in evidence of handing over possession of the suit premises he will deliver the key of the premises.
7. In default of the appellant delivering the possession on or before 31/12/2018 the respondent will be at liberty to take necessary execution proceedings to vacate the appellant from the suit schedule property.
In terms of the above compromise, in substitution of the judgment and decree of the court below there shall be a decree incorporating the compromise”.
The presence of the appellant is dispensed with as requested by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Respondent and the learned Counsel for the respondent are present.
In view of disposal of main appeal, I.A. for stay does not survive and it is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE