IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA HOUSE RENT REVISION PETITION NO.27 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. MEERA BAI W/O LATE RAMESH BABU PATIL AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. M.R. LAKSHMEESHA PATIL AGED 44 YEARS 3. MAHESH M.R.
AGED 32 YEARS 4. NAMITHA M.R.
AGED 30 YEARS THE REVISION PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 4 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE M RAMESH BABU PATIL ALL THE REVISION PETITIONERS ARE R/AT SAIRAM KRUPA BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, D.NO.3.30.2494/2 KADRI KAMBLA ROAD KADRI MANGALURU-575 001 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K, ADV.) AND:
K. MADHUKAR MALLI S/O. SANKAPPA MALLI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS MADHU VIJAYA KAVOOR KULOOR ROAD KUNJATHABAIL POST MANGALURU-575 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV.) THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.02.2017 PASSED IN R.R.P.NO.2/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE, DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION AND CONFIRMING ORDER DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN HRC.NO.6/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(a)(j)(h)(o) AND (p) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R HRC No.6/2010 instituted by the respondent against Mr.M.Ramesh Babu Patel on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada was allowed by a judgment and decree dated 05.10.2013 and the respondent therein was directed to vacate and hand over the petition schedule premises. RRP No.2/2014 was instituted in the District Court at Mangaluru. The revision petitioner having died, his LRs prosecuted the petition. I.A.No.4 was filed by the LRs of deceased revision petitioner to receive additional evidence. On 12.01.2015, an order was passed that the I.A.No.4 would be taken up along with the main petition. Revision petition having been dismissed on 25.02.2017, without considering I.A.No.4 in terms of the order passed on 13.01.2015, this petition was filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the record.
3. Sri.V.Vishwajith Shetty, learned advocate for the respondent did not rightly dispute assertion made by Sri.Sanath Kumar Shetty, that I.A.No.4 was not considered by the Court below, while deciding the revision petition vide the order dated 25.02.2017. As additional evidence sought to be produced has not been taken into consideration or any order passed thereon, there is an error committed by the Court below in dismissing the revision petition vide order dated 25.02.2017. Having regard to the order passed on 13.01.2015, there is an obligation on the part of the Court below to have considered I.A.No.4 along with the main matter. The same having not been done, the impugned order being vitiated and contrary to the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH Vs. MEHAR SINGH, (2009) 17 SCC 465 is unsustainable.
In the result, petition is allowed and the order dated 25.02.2017 passed in RRP No.2/2014 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada set-aside. Rent revision petition restored for consideration and decision afresh. Both the parties are directed to appear before the III Additional District Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada on 03.06.2017 and receive orders.
The revision petition shall be decided by keeping in view the observation made supra, on or before 31.07.2017.
All the contentions of both sides left open.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH