Karnataka Court February 1950 Judgments
T.K. Siddarama Setty Vs. V.K. Kalappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant63; AIR1950Mys63
Balakrishnaiya, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant against whom the respondent plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent as also for ejectment. The defendant pleaded that he had paid rents regularly and was not, therefore, liable to ejected. Both the Courts found against the defendant and awarded a decree for rent as also for possession of the property.2. Sri V. Krishnamurthy on behalf of the appellant contends before this Court that a proper notice contemplated under Section 106, T. P. Act had not been given and, as such, the relief for ejectment ought not to have been granted to the plaintiff, Exhibit B is the notice dated 5th September 1947 in which the plaintiff states:'....you are required to vacate the said schedule houses within one month from the date of receipt of this notice and deliver possession of the same in a proper manner......'Section 106, T.P. Act, lays down that the notice should be served clearly fifteen days before the expiry of and ending with t...
Tag this Judgment!Govindappa and anr. Vs. K. Naranappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant43; AIR1950Mys43
ORDER1. The petitioners are judgment debtors 5(a) and 5(b) in Ex. case No. 488 of 48.49 on the file of the Munsiff, Sagar who filed I.A. No. II under Section 26, Mysore Debt Conciliation Act (Act VI [6] of 1937) claiming stay of execution proceedings on the ground that they had preferred an application in D.C. No. 10 of 49.50 before the Debt Conciliation Board for conciliation of the debt involved in the execution petition. The decree-holder maintained that the judgment-debtors are not entitled to claim the suspension of the execution proceedings as the present application before the Debt Conciliation Board was the fourth of its kind in relation to the same debt and that it is neither a valid application nor otherwise maintainable according to law. The learned Munsiff refused to stay the execution proceedings.2. The decree-holder obtained the decree in O.S. No. 264 of 28-29 on 15-7-1931, more than 18 years ago, and he has not recovered the debt as the judgment-debtors obtained stay rep...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Lakshmiah Setty Vs. Rama Nanjundiah Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Kant62; AIR1950Mys62
ORDER1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in S. C. No. 910 of 47-48 on the file of the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. The suit was filed by him against the present respondent to recover twenty-four months' rent at the rate of Rs. 13, per mensem. The respondent-defendant admitted that he was a tenant but denied that he had agreed to pay Rs. 13 or that he was liable to pay it. On this, the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes held that he had no jurisdiction to give relief at the enhanced rate, and gave a decree for the rent at Rs. 9-8-0 only which he considered the defendant had agreed to pay. It is against this that the present revision petition is filed.2. The main ground that has been taken in this petition is that the Judge of the Court of Small Causes is in error in holding that the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in these matters is ousted by the House Rent Control Order. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes seems to be under the impression that all disput...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›