Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR5599
ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. The petitioner in HRRP 454/02 and 455/02 is none other than the tenant under the respondent landlord at premises No. 609, V. Main, (Sanchi Honnamma Road), Pipe Line, Srinagar, Banashankari I Stage, I Block, Bangalore-50. The entire premises consists of two non-residential and one residential portions. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a non-residential premises taken on lease for the purpose of conducting tuition. The brief facts that led to filing of these revisions petitions are as under:2. The respondent-landlord has instituted HRC Petition 10115/00 Under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act i.e. on the ground of tenant being a chronic defaulter and also for bonafide and reasonable occupation on the ground that his brother is no more and he has to provide accommodation to the wife and children of his brother. In the adjacent portion itself, the petitioner is living along with his wife. Earlier, HRC 437/94 was instituted against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3109
ORDERVenkataraman, J1. The petitioner has filed this Petition for quashing the order dated 18.4.95 in HRC/DC/A-152-1994-95 passed by the second respondent and for a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction declaring that order dated 14.3.95 passed by the third respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable and to consider the matter afresh by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence before it in HRC/ACC(E) 274/94 and proceed with the case thereafter.2. The facts giving rise to this Petition in brief are as hereunder: The Revenue Inspector attached to the office of third respondent, House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore, gave a report dated 23.8.94 to the effect that the premises bearing No. 544, Ground Floor, First Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, had fallen vacant. The Controller issued a notice to the petitioner-landlord to show cause as to why the vacancy was not reported. The petitioner by his reply dated 30.8.94 while admitting that the premis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2304; 2003(3)KarLJ505
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Respondents 1 to 6 were the petitioners and petitioners 1 and 2 were respondents 1(1) and 1(5) in HRC No. 10568 of 1994, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Respondents 7 to 13 herein were the respondents 1(2), 1(3), 1(4), 1(7), 1(8), 1(9) and 1(10) respectively in the said eviction petition. For convenience, respondents 1 to 6 will be referred to as 'landlords' and the petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 7 to 13 will together be referred as 'tenants'.2. The said eviction petition was filed by the landlords against the tenants (the L.Rs of A. Rajagopal who was running Mercury Press in the petition schedule premises) under Section 21(1) proviso (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'old HRC Act' or 'old Act'). The petition schedule premises is a non-residential premises, measuring more than 14 sq. nits. The said petition was allowed by order dated 17-11-2001 under proviso (h) to Section 21(1) of the said Act. Feeling aggr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(4)KarLJ105; 2009(2)KCCR991; 2009(2)AIRKarR76; AIR2009NOC1284(D.B)
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Appellant was the defendant and Respondent was the plaintiff In O.S. No. 4747/2000 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore City. Suit filed by the respondent for decree of ejectment and for damage manse profits against the appellant having been decreed by Trial Court on 04.04.2007, this appeal is filed questioning the same. For convenience, parties will be referred to hereinafter with reference to their rank in the suit.2. The preface of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paras 2 and 3 in the decision of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amritlal and Co., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 397, is apt to be noticed in this appeal by a Public Sector Bank - appellant, to consider the point raised by it for our decision. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:2. It is unfortunate, an eviction petition which was filed on 13.9.1985 still the parties are battling to find which court would have the jurisdiction. Whether the Court of Rent Controller under the Delhi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1734
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this batch of petitions, since common questions of law have been raised, these petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 22740/96, 26483 to 26484/96, 27734 to 27741/96, 28843/96, 2960/97, 15299/97 and 16470/96 have called in question the Constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(bb)(iii) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22740/ 96 has called in question the Constitutional validity of Section 2(7) of the Act. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22740/96 at the hearing of these petitions, limited his argument only to the Constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(bb)(iii) and (iv) and the Explanation given to the said provision. 3. The petitioners, in these petitions, are the tenants in respect of either residential or non-residential premises taken on lease bythem from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2088; 2002(2)KarLJ292
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. All the appellants are tenants except the appellant in W.A. No. 62 of 1999 is a Charitable Trust. However, all the appellants challenge the constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(b)(iii) and (iv) and the Explanation thereto of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 17th of December, 1997 disposed of a batch of writ petitions upholding the constitutional validity of the impugned sections.3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge these writ appeals have been filed.4. These writ appeals appear to be an exercise in futility since the introduction of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The Rent Act received the assent of the President on 22nd day of November, 2001 (Karnataka Act No. 34 of 2001). It was published in the Gazette on 27th of November, 2001 and came into force by a Notification dated 5-12-2001.5. Section 70 of the Rent Act repeals the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1961), Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4732; 2004(3)KarLJ49
ORDERSrinivasa Reddy, J.1. All these petitions give rise to a common question of law, for my consideration. The question is, whether by operation of Section 5 of The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the present Act' for short) the landlords of the premises involved in these petitions are entitled to recover possession of the premises without the need to take recourse to Section 27 of the Act.2. Let me first refer to the background which has given rise to this question. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) provided for inheritability of tenancy by the legal representatives of the original tenant. The inheritance was automatic and there was no end for this inheritance, in that, after the wife or husband of the original tenant, the sons and daughters and after them the grandson and grand-daughters could stake claim because the repealed Act recognized them all as statutory tenants by including in the definition of the term, 'tenant' the surviving spouse or any son ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR657
V. Gopalagowda, J.1. This review Petition is filed by respondents 5 to 7 in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 requesting this Court to review the judgment dt. 8/8/2005 passed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 and further requested to set aside the same and dismiss the appeal with costs urging various legal contentions.2. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to, as has been assigned in the Misc. First Appeal.3. The first ground urged in this petition is that no appeal lies Under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the BPT Act) against the order dt. 24/9/2001 passed in Misc. No. 26/1998 on the file of the District Judge, Uttar Kannada District, Karwar, rejecting the claim of second appellant to appoint him as the Trustee of the Trust of SREE Vinayaka Devaru Temple, Idagunji. Therefore the order passed by this Court allowing the appeal is without jurisdiction, hence the judgment sought to be reviewed suffers f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(3)KarLJ592
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, an octogenarian, aggrieved by the order of eviction suffered by him on 27th September, 1997 preferred the present revision petition and after nearly six years the question whether the landlady would succeed in her endeavour and realise the fruits of this long drawn legal battle waged by her to recover the possession of her property from her never-say-die tenant is to be determined now, in this revision, nearly one and half decades after she first moved the Court below for relief.2. Of that there could be no doubt that this legal battle was fought passionately and bitterly, at times the parties going for each other's jugular veins the tenant taking the lead in this regard by filing an application under Section 340(2) read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. for holding a preliminary inquiry as to the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 193 and 209 of the IPC by the landlord, followed closely by a similar application by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ87
ORDERA.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.1. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below rejecting petitioner's prayer for eviction of the tenant on the grounds available under Clauses (a) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the petitioner-landlord has preferred this revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petition, briefly stated, are as under:(i) The petitioner filed the eviction petition claiming that the respondent was a tenant under her in respect of the petition property on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and he had failed to pay rent of the said property from 1-2-1984 to 30-9-1985 in spite of several demands and legal notice dated 12-6-1985. She further claimed in the petition that the petition premises is required by her for the bona fide use and occupation of herself and her family members. (ii) The learned Munsiff on a detailed examination of the claim of the petitioner and the def...
Tag this Judgment!