IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CRP.NO.637/2018 BETWEEN:
SMT.V.SUKANYA, W/O LATE S. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, ‘SRI HARI’ 2ND FLOOR, 4TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. VASANTHA LAKSHMI.H.V, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT.MANJULA KUMARI, W/O RANJEET KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX:MEHAAN ELECTRIC CO., NO.10, V.S.LANE, CHICKPET CROSS, BENGALURU-560 053.
ALSO AT:
NO.263, FLAT NO.305, 1ST MAIN ROAD, A.V.ROAD, OPP:CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION, MANIDHARI ENCLAVE, BENGALURU-560 018. ... RESPONDENT THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN S.C.NO.649/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is before this Court under Section 18 of the Small Causes Court Act assailing the order dated 29.11.2018 on I.A.No.1 in S.C.No.649/2018 on the file of the XIV Additional Small Causes Court, Bengaluru.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant in S.C.No.649/2018 filed praying for order of ejectment of the defendant from the schedule property and for mesne profits/damages at the rate of `25,000/- per month. When the suit was at the stage of defendant’s evidence, petitioner – plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 under Section 151 CPC praying for a direction to defendant to pay damages amounting to `1,36,000/- to the plaintiff. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that defendant is the tenant on a rental of `8,500/- per month. Further, it is stated that defendant paid last rent in the month of June, 2017 and subsequently, rent was not paid. Thus, defendant is in arrears of rent of `1,36,000/-. Defendant filed objection opposing the application. The Trial Court under the impugned order rejected the application. Hence, petitioner – plaintiff is before this Court in this petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition papers.
4. Admittedly, the suit is at the stage of defendant’s evidence. Plaintiff’s application is for a direction to the defendant to pay admitted damages amounting to `1,36,000/-. Defendant has disputed the rent. Further, the Trial Court has observed that the defendant has taken a defence that she has already handed over the key of the schedule premises to the plaintiff. Hence, it has felt that at this stage plaintiff would not be entitled for a direction as sought in the application. As the issue involved requires trial, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. I find no jurisdictional or material irregularity in dismissing the application. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS