IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.2220 OF 2018 C/W R.F.A.No.410 OF 2019 In R.F.A.No.2220 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Mr. V.Ramesh Son of T.R.Venkataraman, Aged about 60 years, Residing at F-12, Ashiana Apartments, 2nd Cross Street, Venus Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai-600018.
(By Sri. H.S.Sachidanand for Smt. Smitha N, Advocate) AND:
1. Mrs. Aparna Suresh Aged about 48 years, Wife of Suresh Narayan D/o. Dr.V.Parameshvara C/o. No.54 (10/3) Kumara Krupa Road, Bangalore-560 001. Represented by her Registered GPA Sri. A.P.Sriram.
…Appellant 2. Smt. Bhavani Ramesh Director, M/s. CurAlea Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd., C-3 Cedar Crest, 248, 1st Cross, 10th Main Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038.
Also at Flat No.F, Falcon Crest, No.139, 4th Main Road, Defence Colony, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038.
3. M/s. CurAlea Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Deleted C-3 Cedar Crest, 248, 1st Cross, v/o.dt.11.07.2019 10th Main Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038.
…Respondents (By Sri.Gnanesh N.I, Advocate for R-1;
Smt. Sumana Baliga M, Advocate for R-2;
R-3 is deleted vide order dated:11.07.2019) **** This Regular First Appeal is filed under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated:28.07.2018 passed in O.S.No.25040/2016 on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for ejectment.
In R.F.A.No.410 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Bhavani Ramesh W/o. V.Ramesh Aged about 56 years, Director, M/s. CurAlea Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd., C-3 Cedar Crest, 248, 1st Cross, 10th Main Road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-38.
R/at Flat-F, Falcon Crest, No.139 4th Main Road, Defence colony, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-38.
2. M/s. CurAlea Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd., C-3 Deleted Cedar Crest, 248, 1st Cross, v/o.dt.11.07.2019 10th Main Road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-38.
…Appellants (By Smt. Sumana Baliga M, Advocate for A-1;
A-2 is deleted vide order dated:11.07.2019) AND:
1. Mrs. Aparna Suresh W/o Suresh Narayan Aged about 48 years, D/o. Dr.V.Parameshwara C/o. No.54 (10/3) Kumara Krupa Road, Bengaluru-01.
2. V. Ramesh Director, M/s. CurAlea Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd., C-3 Cedar Crest, 248, 1st Cross, 10th Main Road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-38.
(By Sri. Gnanesh N.I, Advocate for R-1;
…Respondents Sri. H.S.Sachidanand, Advocate for R-2) **** This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated:28.07.2018 passed in O.S.No.25040/2016 on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for ejectment and vacant possession.
These Regular First Appeals coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Both these appeals are defendants’ appeals.
2. The suit for ejectment that was filed by the plaintiff in the Court of XIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “Trial Court”), seeking to vacate the suit schedule property from the defendants, was decreed by the Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 28-07-2018, whereunder, the defendants therein were directed to quit, vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, within three months from the date of the said order. The defendants were also directed to pay damages at the rate of `30,387/- per month to the plaintiff from 01-12-2015 till they vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property.
3. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 in the Court below preferred separate appeals before this Court in R.F.A.No.2220/2018 and R.F.A.No.410/2019 respectively. Though defendant No.3 in the Court below was also arraigned as appellant No.2 in R.F.A.No.410/2019, however, during the pendency of the said appeal and at the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants, the said appellant No.2 was deleted from the cause title of the said appeal.
Similarly as a respondent No.3, the said respondent was deleted from the cause title of appeal in R.F.A.No.2220/2018, at the request and on the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant therein.
4. The matter is listed in orders list today.
5. Learned counsel from both side are present and they make a joint submission that the appellant in R.F.A.No.410/2019 who is said to be in possession of the suit schedule property till today, is volunteering to deliver the keys of the suit schedule property stating that she is delivering the vacant peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent, i.e. Smt. Aparna Suresh through her counsel in the Court.
6. With the said submission, the learned counsel for the appellant in R.F.A.No.410/2019 prays to dispose of the appeal filed by her, recording that, she has vacated and handed over the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant in R.F.A.No.2220/2018 submits that, in view of the fact that the vacant possession of the suit schedule property is now being handed over to the plaintiff/respondent No.1 – Smt. Aparna Suresh in both these appeals, the only question that remains is with respect to the payment of damages as decreed by the Court below.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff herself in her evidence through her General Power of Attorney holder as PW-1 has clearly admitted that the rents at par with the rate of damages now fixed, i.e. `30,387/- per month has been paid by her till the end of April-2017, which is acknowledged by the appellant in her Examination-in-chief.
Learned counsel further submits that subsequent damages is also being paid in the Executing Court in the execution proceedings barring arrears for a couple of months, if any, of the immediate preceding months.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff admits that the damages though called by the name of rent at the rate of `30,387/- per month has been paid by the defendants in the Court below from 01-12-2015 till end of April-2017 and that the subsequent payment deposited in the Executing Court can be ascertained and computed in the Executing Court, which would be payable by the appellant in R.F.A.No.2220/2018 who is defendant No.1 in the Trial Court.
10. Learned counsel from both side submit that, recording the above submissions of the parties, both these appeals may be disposed of.
11. In view of the above submission and in view of the fact that the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff now received the keys of the suit schedule property and acknowledged the receipt of the vacant, peaceful possession of the suit schedule property, it is taken on record that the appellant in both the appeals have vacated the suit schedule premises and have delivered the vacant peaceful possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent No.1/plaintiff.
12. With respect to the payment of damages, it is taken on record of the submission made by both side and the submission of acknowledgement of receipt of damages by the respondent No.1/plaintiff at the rate of `30,387/- per month from 01-12-2015 till the end of April-2017, and it is taken that there are no arrears or dues so far as the damages for the said period is concerned.
13. With respect to the damages from May-2017 till this day, i.e. 11-07-2019, since both the parties have submitted that they would calculate the dues if any, in the execution proceedings which is said to be pending in the Court below, the same is taken on record and as such, no further order is required to be passed in this matter.
14. Accordingly, both these appeals are treated as settled between the parties and are disposed of.
The refund of Court fee paid, if any, to the appellants would be in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*