IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR HRRP No. 13 OF 2019 BETWEEN Sri. Y.Veeranarayana Gowda, Aged 48 years, S/o. V.Yellegowda, Proprietor of M/s. Vinayaka Medicals, No.37, (Old No.137), 8th Main, 14th Cross, Lakkasandra Layout, Bengaluru-560030.
(By Sri. D.Prabhakar, Advocate) AND Dr. Leena Vijay Kumar, W/o. Sri. Vijay Kumar Kaujalgi, Aged about 50 years, R/at No.5, 27th Main, 2nd Cross, VGS Layout, Ejipura, Bengaluru-560047. (By Sri. M.J.Alva, Advocate) …Petitioner …Respondent This HRRP is filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 against the order dated 21.01.2019 passed in HRC No.4/2018 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, allowing the petition filed under Section 27(2)(o) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
This HRRP coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER The petitioner Sri Y.Veeranarayana Gowda files an undertaking affidavit. In this affidavit he has stated that he will vacate and hand over vacant possession of the schedule premises to respondent Dr.Leena Vijay Kumar on or before 31.8.2020. It is also stated that the respondent has to refund to him an amount of Rs.10,05,000/- at the time of handing over the keys of the schedule premises. He has further undertaken that he will pay the rent regularly @ Rs.600/- per month till he vacates the schedule premises.
2. In regard to this affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that his client has no objection for giving time till 31.8.2020. However, it is his submission that the respondent’s vendor has to refund Rs.10,05,000/- to the petitioner. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the respondent obtained possession of the schedule premises by executing a decree in a suit for specific performance. The petitioner was a tenant under respondent’s vendor and if he had paid advance amount of Rs.10,05,000/- to the respondent’s vendor, she cannot be saddled with the liability because at the time of taking over possession it was not brought to the notice of the respondent that the tenant had paid advance of Rs.10,05,000/-. The learned counsel for the respondent also makes a submission to direct the petitioner to pay enhanced rent because Rs.600/- was fixed in the year 1982 and that the petitioner is using the property for running a business.
3. The undertaking given by the petitioner to vacate the schedule premises on or before 31.8.2020 is placed on record. So far as refund of Rs.10,05,000/- is concerned, it is to be stated that if any amount is due to the petitioner, he may recover the same from the respondent if at all the respondent has to repay it. No opinion as regards this amount can be expressed. Even with regard to rate of enhancement of rent, it is to be stated that since the petitioner himself has come forward to vacate the premises, I do not think that no further enhancement can be given. With these observations, the undertaking affidavit is accepted. The petitioner is given time till 31.8.2020 to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises. No further extension of time shall be sought by the petitioner.
The amount deposited by the petitioner is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent. The petitioner shall be regular in paying the rents till he vacates the schedule premises as per the undertaking given by him.
Sd/- JUDGE Ckl