IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8835/2018 (CPC) BETWEEN:
M/S. UMIYA HOLDING PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY G.SRIKANTH REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PRESENTLY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT #29/3 H.M.STRAFFORD, 2ND FLOOR, 7TH CROSS VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 052 … APPELLANT (BY SRI SANJAY NAIR & SRI B.G.SALIMATH, ADVOCATES FOR M/S. ANUP S.SHAH LAW FIRM) AND:
M/S. SARGA INDIA COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND DIRECTOR MADHU KUMAR MANTENA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O SRI.KRISHAN BHAVAGAN RAJU REGISTERED OFFICE AT #4 3RD FLOOR, DIVYA SREE BUILDING 19TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN J.P.NAGAR 5TH PHASE BANGALORE – 560 078.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI SUKUMARAN G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2018 PASSED ON IA NOS.1 & 2 IN O.S.NO.25315/2018 ON THE FILE OF XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU (CCH–20), ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, REJECTING IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T 1. This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.25315/2018 on the file of XXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-20), Bengaluru.
2. Respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a tenant under the appellant and since it faced threat of dispossession without due process of law, it had to file a suit and obtain an order of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from dispossessing the plaintiff or disconnecting any of the civic amenities.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already instituted a suit for ejectment in O.S.No.25094/2019 and that the respondent herein has entered appearance in the said suit. The very fact that the appellant has instituted a suit for eviction shows that the appellant wanted to take possession by following the process of law. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant will not disconnect the amenities provided to the suit property, but the respondent should be regular in payment of rent.
4. In view of the fact that the suit for ejectment is filed by the appellant, the respondent’s apprehension that the respondent will be dispossessed without due process of law no longer survives. However, the appellant is justified in insisting on the respondent to pay the rent regularly to it, and therefore, the respondent shall pay the rent regularly to the appellant.
With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.