IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR R.F.A. No.554/2017 BETWEEN:
RAMAKRISHNA .K S/O. KODAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.981, BDA LAYOUT, JNANABHARATHI 2ND STAGE, MARIYAPPAN PALYA, BENGALURU – 560 056. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. ROCKY .P.J S/O. P.V. JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.23, MICHAEL PALYA, INDIRA NAGAR, 80 FEET ROAD, N.T. POST, BENGALURU – 560 075.
2. ASHOKA .C S/O. CHIKKABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. M.M. ENTERPRISES, MANJUNATHA BAR AND RESTAURANT, NO.13, MANJUNATHA COTTAGE, 8TH CROSS, NAGAVARA PALYA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 093. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.V. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI K.N. DAYALU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ***** THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25870/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU. PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR VACANT POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2 on I.A.No.I/2017 filed under Section 151 of CPC.
2. This application is filed by the appellant seeking leave to prefer an appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 18/02/2017 passed by the XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, in O.S.No.25870/2016.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs initiated suit for ejectment against respondent No.2 in this appeal, in respect of the suit property. Plaintiffs are the landlords and the respondent No.2 is the tenant and their relationship is not disputed. The trial Court decreed the suit. The appellant now contends that he is a sub-tenant under respondent No.2. He was not made a party in the suit. The plaintiffs and the defendant colluded with each other. Actually, the appellant is carrying on business in the suit property and it is he who is going to be affected by virtue of the judgment and decree and therefore he is an aggrieved party.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant made an application in the trial Court to get himself impleaded in the suit, but his application was dismissed. The appellant is doing business and because of the impugned judgment, he has to vacate the suit property now and in that view of the matter, appellant is the aggrieved party and therefore, leave may be granted.
5. Counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the application stating that the appellant has created the document to show that he is a sub-tenant in the property.
Since the respondent No.2 is doing business, he did not contest the suit and therefore, leave should not be granted.
6. In the affidavit filed along with the application, it is stated that the appellant is carrying on business on the strength of a General Power of Attorney executed in his favour by respondent No.2. Now a submission is also made that the appellant is a sub-tenant under the second respondent. Therefore, it is very clear that the appellant has no independent right. In a suit for ejection, sub-tenant need not be made a party. The plaintiffs being landlords have obtained a decree for ejection and the same is binding on the appellant also. I do not think that just because he is doing business in the suit property he has a right to prefer an appeal. Therefore, the application I.A.No.I/2017 filed for grant of leave to file the appeal is dismissed. Consequently appeal is also dismissed. I.A.No.II/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration.
*mvs Sd/- JUDGE