IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR H.R.R.P. NO.80 OF 2016 (EVI) C/W H.R.R.P.NO.19 OF 2017 IN H.R.R.P. NO.80 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
SRI.V.SUBRAMANI, S/O M.VAYAPURI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.126, 4TH CROSS, NARAYANA PILLAI STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.JOSE SABASTIAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.V.ILANGOVAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O VAJRAVELU MUDALIAR, R/AT NO.6, MUTHYALAMMA KOIL “E” STREET, BENGALURU – 560001.
2. SRI.V.CHANDRA SEKARAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE VAJRAVELU MUDALIAR, R/AT NO.6, MUTHYALAMMA KOIL “E” STREET, BENGALURU – 560001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.A.HUMAYUN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) **** THIS H.R.R.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.07.2016 PASSED IN HRC.NO.10005/2016 ON THE FILE FO THE XV ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2) AND (r) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999.
IN H.R.R.P. NO.19 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI.V.SUBRAMANI, S/O M.VAYAPURI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.126, 4TH CROSS, NARAYANA PILLAI STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.JOSE SABASTIAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.V.ILANGOVAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O VAJRAVELU MUDALIAR, R/AT NO.6, MUTHYALAMMA KOIL “E” STREET, BENGALURU – 560001.
2. SRI.V.CHANDRA SEKARAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE VAJRAVELU MUDALIAR, R/AT NO.6, MUTHYALAMMA KOIL “E” STREET, BENGALURU – 560001. ...RESPONDENTS **** THIS H.R.R.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2017 PASSED IN MISC. NO.15014/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 13 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 03.04.2019 stating that the petitioner has already vacated and handed over possession of the petition premises to the respondents after adjustment of advance amount with the payment of rents. The Counsel has further sought for refund of the amount of Rs.7,500/- and Rs.25,000/- deposited in HRRP No.80/2016.
2. Heard counsel for the respondents.
3. In view of the submission of counsel for both parties, memo is placed on record.
4. Both petitions are dismissed as not pressed.
5. The amount of Rs.7,500/- and Rs.25,000/- deposited in HRRP No.80/2016 is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR