Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 375 (KAR)

CHANDRAMMA v. VARAMAHALAKSHAMMA

2000-06-05

S.R.VENKATESHA MURTHY

body2000
VENKATESHA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter is listed for admission. Heard the counsel appearing for both the parties and the matter is finally disposed of, ( 2 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of the District Judge, Chitradurga in R. R. P. No. 12/1999 rejecting the revision as not maintainable by his order dated 6. 4. 2000. ( 3 ) THE petitioners who are legal representatives of deceased Siddaramappa, sought to continue the revision in R. R. P. 12/1999. Though the learned District Judge brought them on records legal representatives of deceased revision petitioner, he held on the basis of the decision reported jn S. V. VENKATARAMANAPPA SINCE deceased BY LRs vs RAVINDRA K. NAIDU that the L. Rs. of a tenant in respect of a non-residential premises is not entitled to contest the proceedings and they have to surrender possession of the premises to the landlord. Having said so, the learned District judge has dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable as the legal representatives have no right to contest and are liable to surrender the premises to the landlord. ( 4 ) IN this revision, the petitioners' Counsel has relied on a decision reported in GANTUSA H. BADDI (DEAD) BY L. Rs vs MEERABAI g. PAI and OTHERS ( AIR 2000 SCW 1564 ) in support of his contention that the legal representatives of the tenant of a non- residential premises are entitled to contest on merits the eviction proceedings. In the above case, it has been held that the decision in Venkatesh Thimmaiah's case (1997) 11 SCC 628 has not been correctly decided. Having regard to the decision referred to above, it is clear that the order of the District Judge dismissing the revision as not maintainable has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the District judge to decide the matter on merits. ( 5 ) FDR the reasons stated, revision is allowed. The impugned order of the District Judge, Chitradurga is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Judge to decide the same on merits. The parties shall appear before the District Judge, Davangere to receive further instruction in the matter on 21. 8. 2000. ( 5 ) FDR the reasons stated, revision is allowed. The impugned order of the District Judge, Chitradurga is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Judge to decide the same on merits. The parties shall appear before the District Judge, Davangere to receive further instruction in the matter on 21. 8. 2000. The District judge, Chitradurga who is presently exercising jurisdiction shall forward the records of RRP 12/1999 and the connected trial Court records to the District Judge, Davangere to enable the compliance of this order. --- *** --- .