IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA HOUSE RENT REVISION PETITION NO.93/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI B. JANARDHANA SHETTY S/O. BALAPPA SHETTY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.
1. SRI SATHISH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BOTH ARE CHILDREN OF LATE B. JANARDHANA SHETTY R/O DOOR NO.6-13-499 GUNDU RAO LANE MANNAGUDDA MANGALURU – 575 003 D.K.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI M. SUDHAKAR PAI, ADV.) AND:
1. Dr. DENZIL PINTO S/O. LATE A. PINTO AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT GUNDU RAO LANE MANNAGUDDA MANGALURU – 575 003 D.K.
2. Mrs. GRENYL COLACO NEE PINTO W/O. REGINALD W.COLACO D/O LATE A. PINTO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT MALIYA, NEAR VALENCIA BUS STOP VALENCIA, MANGALURU – 575 002 D.K.
3. Mrs. HAZEL COLACO NEE PINTO W/O ALEXANDER R. COLACO D/O LATE A. PINTO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT “HARMONY”, NEAR VALENCIA BUS STOP VALENCIA MANGALURU – 575 002 D.K.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. VISHWAJITH RAI, ADV.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2016 IN R.R.P.NO.10/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU AND ALSO THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 23.06.2012 IN H.R.C.NO.23/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MANGALURU, D.K.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER HRC No.23/2010 filed by the respondents against Sri B. Janardhana Shetty, since deceased and represented by his LRs. i.e., the petitioners herein, after contest was allowed by the learned Trial Judge by reason of the order dated 23.06.2012. By the said order, the petition instituted under Section 27(2)(a)(c)(o) and (r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 having been allowed with cost, the sole respondent therein – Sri B. Janardhana Shetty filed RRP No.10/2012 in the District Court, D.K., Mangaluru. The revision petitioner having died, his L.Rs. came on record and prosecuted the case. By reason of the order dated 05.08.2016, learned III Additional District Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, having found the petition to be devoid of merit and passed the order of dismissal, this petition was filed by the LRs. of the deceased original respondent.
2. Heard learned advocates on both sides and perused the impugned orders.
3. There is concurrent finding by the courts below. Sri M. Sudhakar Pai, learned advocate for the petitioners was unable to point out any material error in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge and the consideration of record of the case and rival contentions by the learned District Judge exercising the power of revision. As the findings recorded by the courts below was not shown to be perverse or illegal, there is no scope for interference in exercise of the power under Section 115 CPC. Sri M. Sudhakar Pai was unable to point out any material error or irregularity muchless any illegality committed by either of the two Courts below. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. At this stage, Sri M. Sudhakar Pai, submitted that reasonable time may be granted to the petitioners to make alternate arrangement. Learned counsel sought two years time for the LRs. of the deceased original respondent to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. Said prayer was stoutly opposed by Sri Vishwajith Rai. He submitted that eviction petition was instituted during 2010 and more than six years having elapsed, the petitioners should immediately hand over the vacant possession.
5. There being no dispute that the LRs. of original respondent are in occupation of the petition schedule premises, reasonable time can be allowed for them to make alternate arrangement and hand over vacant possession to the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, time for the petitioners herein to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondents stands extended upto 30.06.2018, subject to the petitioners filing an undertaking-cum-affidavit in the usual format, within a period of four weeks.
Petition is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE ca