IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 15404 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANDRAKANTH P SANU S/O SRI PURUSHOTHAM SANU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT MARUTHI KRUPA, OPPOSITE SAHAYOG COMPLEX, ALAKE, MANGALORE – 03.
(BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN IS NOT CLAIMED) (BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. L S VEDAPUSHPA W/O SRI T R DHANANJAYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SRI. T R DHANANJAYA, S/O LATE SRI. T RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1518, 17TH CROSS, J P NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 078.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M B CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.02.2019 PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, CCH 19 BENGALURU ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.6564/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE – F.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in respondents’ ejectment suit in O.S.No.6564/2016 has knocked at the doors of this Court assailing the order dated 11.02.2019 made by the learned trial judge dismissing his application in IA No.1. After service of notice, the respondent – plaintiffs have entered appearance through their counsel.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R B Sadashivappa vehemently contended that the suit is one for ejectment decree; the question of ejectment would not arise inasmuch as the petitioner has vacated the premises way back in May, 2010 itself and thereafter his son has contracted a fresh tenancy; these facts that emerge from the material on record of the trial court required dismissal of the suit by favouring petitioner’s application in IA No.1. To substantiate this stand, the petitioner has taken this Court through various documents and depositions as well.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri M B Chandrachooda per contra submits that the suit is not only a bare decree for ejectment alone but also for recovery of arrears of rent that have accrued due; the premises in question are still in the occupation of the petitioner who is falsely contending as to he having vacating the same in May, 2010 only to deny or defraud the respondent – plaintiffs of the justice at the hands of the trial Court. So arguing, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the writ petition papers and the Statement of Objections. I decline to interfere in the matter for the following reasons:
a) Respondents’ suit in O.S. No. 6564/2016 is not for a bare decree of ejectment of the petitioner; the prayer column in the plaint seeks a decree for the arrears of rent in a huge sum of Rs.33,45,252/- and also for damages at the rate of Rs.71,326/- ( per what period is not mentioned) till the petitioner delivers back the possession of the property to the respondents;
b) There is a serious dispute as to whether the petitioner has been continuing in the occupation of the subject property inasmuch as petitioner asserts that he vacated the same in May, 2010 whereas the respondents stoutly controvert the same; this Court cannot try the disputed facts and there is a case for trial;
c) Although it is true that no person should be subject to unnecessary trial and turbulation of Court proceedings, still in this case going by pleadings of the parties and several documents placed on record by them, the trial of the suit is justified; if at all the version of the petitioner-defendant emerges to be true after the trial, he would earn the costs, at the hands of the trial Court.
5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition being devoid of merits, stands disposed off leaving the impugned order intact.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/