IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.764/2018 (HRC) BETWEEN:
SRI T. GOPAL S/O T. MEDA GAVAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT 536/11, 2ND FLOOR KOLLA COMPLEX AVENUE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 002 (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN IS NOT CLAIMED) ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUMITHRA G.M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI K.K. SHEKAR S/O LATE K.S. KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT M/S. SANKAR SILK HOUSE KOLLA COMPLEX AVENUE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 002 2. SRI N. LAKSHMI GUPTHA W/O NAGARAJ GUPTHA ADVOCATE, MAJOR NO.157, 11TH CROSS NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR NGEF LAYOUT NAGARABAVI ROAD BANGALORE – 560 072.
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.30419/2015 ON 24.10.2017 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant has filed an application under Section 47, Order XXI read with Rules 96 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Execution No.1945/2014 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, inter alia seeking to object execution of the eviction proceedings initiated by the owner of the premises. By an order dated 23rd March 2015, the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court dismissed the said application with cost. The appellant challenged the same in Writ Petition No.30419/2015. By order dated 24th October 2017, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this appeal.
2. Smt. Sumithra G.M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the appellant is a co-tenant. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on the affidavit filed in support of the objector application and argued that the fact that applicant was a co-tenant was well within knowledge of the owner of the premises in question. She further argued that the owner has admitted that the appellant was a co- tenant.
3. However, a perusal of the material placed on record does not disclose any evidence to show that the appellant was a co-tenant along with the Judgment Debtor. In the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is stated that the owner of the premises had given an invitation card to the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant places strong reliance on the invitation card to support her contention that the owner of the premises had knowledge that the appellant was a co-tenant.
4. The circumstances relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant hardly support the theory that appellant was a co-tenant. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Chief Judge rejecting the application as well as the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. Resultantly, this writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SN