IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.346/2017 BETWEEN SRI. BHUPENDRA R SODHA, S/O RASIKLALA D SODHA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PROP M/S ATUL INDUSTRIES, NO.1251, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. S.SUMATHI FOR SRI. SURYA PRAKASH A.M, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. N.LOKESH, S/O LATE N.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SMT. MEENAKSHI, W/O LATE N.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.200, 7TH CROSS, 1ST ‘N’ BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.GUNASHEKAR FOR SRI. D.N.MANJUNATH FOR C/R-1 AND R-2) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:19.07.2017 PASSED IN SC.NO.698/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. SCJ AND XXXIII ACMM, BENGALURU., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ‘ADMISSION’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and the learned counsel for the respondent-land lord.
2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in S.C.No.698/2016 decreeing the suit of the land lord and consequently directing the petitioner –tenant herein to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises within two months from the date of the judgment.
3. Matter was listed on 18.9.2017 and again on 21.9.2017.
4. The Parties are present. The short point that was canvassed is that the time granted by the Trial Court for vacating and handing over possession was too short a time for the petitioner to secure an alternative accommodation in light of the fact that it is a business establishment and that the petitioner, who had generated good will in the locality, would require some time to identify a suitable alternative accommodation for the purpose of shifting his business and now it is prayed that a year’s time has to be granted to the petitioner to enable him to secure an alternative accommodation.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/land lord would contend that the land lord requires the premises for his own bonafide purpose and presently he is carrying on business in a rented premises and that the respondent-land lord is agreeable for granting extension of time till March, 2018.
6. In the light of the above contentions, the parties were directed to explore the possibility of resolving the issue.
7. Today the petitioner-tenant has filed an affidavit and in paragraph 5 he has deposed that he is running an electrical appliances and steel utensils shop in the suit schedule premises and that he has commenced searching for an alternative suitable premises in the same locality as shifting to some other place at this point of time would adversely affect his business on account of loss of good will.
8. It is also submitted that as he has initiated various schemes for his customers, it could lead to legal complications if he is forced to shift out of the present locality and that he may lose his customers and this in turn would also indirectly result in loss of business.
9. In view of the submission made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief sought for by the petitioner for an extended time to vacate and hand over possession of the suit schedule premises requires to be considered.
10. It is no doubt true that the respondent-land lord has the benefit of an order to vacate the respondent from the rented premises. But the fact remains is that if the petitioner is forced to shift the present premises, it would result in unpleasant consequences and legal obligations in view of the good business run by him which would ultimately lead to loss of customers.
11. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that time could be extended till 31.10.2018 subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/-
p.m. and subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking in this Court that he would not drive the respondent/land lord to resort for any course for his eviction after 31.10.2018.
13. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part. The order of the Trial Court is partially modified to the extent that the time granted to vacate and hand over possession is extended till 31.10.2018 and the rest of the order is confirmed.
Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE rs