IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 644 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Smt. Nirmala Jagadeesh, Aged about 48 years, W/o Late Jagadeesh, Lal Bahaddur Shastry Service Station, Bengaluru – Mysuru Highway, Siddalingapura, Mysuru Taluk and District – 570 003. (By Sri.P. Nataraju, Advocate) AND:
1. B.V. Srikantaiah, Aged about 85 years, S/o Late B.V. Shastry, R/at No.1263/C, I ‘B’ Cross, 7th ‘C’ Main, Hampinagar, Bengaluru 2. M.S. Jayalakshmamma, Aged about 79 years, W/o Late B.V. Narayana.
…Appellant 3. B.N. Rajeeva, Aged about 59 years, S/o Late B.V. Narayana.
Respondents No.2 and 3 are R/at No.E-8, CFTRI Quarters, 9th Street, Mysuru City – 570020 …Respondents (By Sri. S.V. Prakash, Advocate for C/R-1; Sri. R. Balaji, Advocate for R-2 and R-3.) This RSA is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2016 passed in RA. No.697/2016 on the file of the VII Addl. District Judge, Mysuru, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2016 passed in O.S. No.715/2009 on the file of the Addl. II Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru.
This RSA is coming on for admission, this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below.
2. Defendant in O.S. No.715/2009 on the file of the Additional II Civil Judge & JMFC at Mysuru has preferred this appeal challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below whereby, the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment and for possession of the suit property has been decreed by the Courts below.
3. Sri. P. Nataraju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (defendant in the suit) submits that if respondents grant time to the appellant upto 31.06.2018, the appellant is agreeable to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent voluntarily.
4. Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the Caveat/respondent No.1 (Plaintiff No.1) and Sri. R. Balaji for True Law Advocates and Solicitors appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 (plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3) submit that respondents require the suit schedule premises very badly for their personal use and therefore, they submit that appellant may be directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to respondents by taking reasonable time, subject to payment of arrears of rent, if any, and payment of future rent by way of damages. The respondents are carrying on business in running petrol bunk in the suit schedule premises and therefore, it would be just and proper to grant time as sought for by the appellant so as to enable them to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the respondents by moving into an alternative premises within the said time. Hence the following order.
Appeal stands disposed of. The judgment and decree dated 05.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.715/2009 by the Additional II Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru and the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2016 passed in R.A.No. 697/16 by VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru are hereby confirmed, subject to the following modification:
Respondents have agreed for granting time to the appellant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises in their favour upto 30.06.2018, subject to the following conditions:
1. Appellant shall pay arrears of rent, if any, to the respondents within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2. Appellant shall continue to pay future rent by way of damages at the rate of Rs. 1300/- per month and damages of the previous month shall be paid on or before 10th of every succeeding month and shall pay electricity and water charges, if any, payable on the suit schedule premises to the concerned authorities and shall keep the said services in force and in the event appellant failing to pay future rent/damages of two previous consecutive months, at the rate of Rs.1,300/- per month on or before 10th of next succeeding month, respondents will be at liberty to initiate proceedings for recovery of suit premises as if no time has been granted by this Court.
3. Appellant shall not sublet or induct any third party into the possession of the suit schedule premises during their stay.
4. Appellant shall not change the nature or cause damage to the suit schedule premises during their stay.
5. Respondents have agreed that they would not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the appellant over the suit schedule premises till 30.06.2018.
6. The appellant shall voluntarily vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondents on or before 30.06.2018 without dragging the respondents into executing Court.
7. It is made clear that no further extension of time will be granted to the appellant. Appellant shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit by incorporating the above terms within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after servicing copy of the said affidavit on the learned counsel for the respondents.
In view of disposal of the main appeal, I.A. No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.
The Judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in so far as granting liberty to the respondents to initiate separate proceedings for holding enquiry as to the damages, stands undisturbed.
Sd/- JUDGE Akv/-