Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 421 (KAR)

Ghouse Khan v. Kumbara Sangha

2012-05-04

K.GOVINDARAJULU

body2012
ORDER K. GOVINDARAJULU, J.—The defendant in S.C. No. 1000/2011 on the file of Small Causes Court at Bangalore is the petitioner in this revision petition under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act. 2. Heard both sides. Case is taken up for final disposal. 3. The facts necessary for consideration of the petition are as follows :— The case of the plaintiff is that it is the owner of the plaint schedule property a shop bearing No. 14 situated at Kumbara Sangha Building, Kalasipalyam New Extension, Bangalore. The petitioner herein is the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,900/- p.m. The plaintiff has sought for possession of the property by seeking an eviction order against the defendant. The defence of the defendant is that the said proceedings are on illusory ground and not maintainable. Based upon the pleadings, the learned Trial Judge has permitted the parties to lead evidence. P.W. 1 examined one Sri. K. P. Krishna. Through him resolution to use the premises for educational purposes as per Ex P1, legal notice as per Ex.P2.post acknowledgment card as per Ex.P3 and reply as per Ex.P4 are marked. In response, the petitioner herein viz. the defendant in the Small Causes cases has entered appearance and is examined as DW-1. Through him, a receipt as per Ex.D1 and a legal notice as per Ex.D2 are marked. The learned Trial Judge, after having considered the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff intends to use the property for educational purpose, granted a decree of eviction. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner Sri. Akmal Razvi submit that the owner of the property has settled in regard to order tenements. The tenant has no right on merits, but as the other tenements are continuing with the possession and there is agreement with other tenements, similar benefit be given to the petitioner herein and he is ready to pay the additional rent, if any. The learned advocate placed reliance on page No. 47 to support his submission. 5. The learned advocate for the respondent Sri. G. Narsi Reddy submits that the other tenements have vacated and there is no such continuation of earlier tenancy, so seeks for orders. 6. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that he will produce the documents to show that the parties viz. the other tenements and the respondent herein have continued the tenancy. G. Narsi Reddy submits that the other tenements have vacated and there is no such continuation of earlier tenancy, so seeks for orders. 6. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that he will produce the documents to show that the parties viz. the other tenements and the respondent herein have continued the tenancy. Compromise and continuation of tenancy pleaded by the learned advocate for the petitioner is totally denied by the learned advocate for the respondent. 7. In the light of the above, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (a) Whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of time to produce the documents? (b) Whether the order passed by the Court below requires interference by admitting the petition? 8. The memo relied on by the learned advocate at page 47 shows that the landlord has represented before the Small Causes Court that the suit filed has to be dismissed and the Court fee has to be refunded. There is no material to support the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the other tenements are continuing in this said property. After having come to know about this subject from a reading of the document relied, the learned advocate for the petitioner seeks some more time to produce the documents. The very purpose of moving this case before the Vacation Court is to see that he gets similar relief that is said to be granted in favour of other tenements. But, that very same document is not produced before the Court. The question of granting further time, that too after a period of three years of initiation of eviction proceedings, does not call for. It shows that the petitioner is lacking bona fides in his approach, so the prayer for adjourning the case for securing the records is rejected. 9. The positive submission of the learned advocate for the respondent is that other tenements have vacated and there is no such adjustment or continuation of earlier tenancy. If this is a false representation before the Court, learned advocate for the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps. So, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. 10. After dictating the order, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that his clients may be permitted to continue in the premises for a period of six months. So, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. 10. After dictating the order, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that his clients may be permitted to continue in the premises for a period of six months. The same is opposed by the learned advocate for the respondent contending that the intention of getting the possession is for educational purpose, so I see no merit to grant further time sought for. The said prayer is rejected. 11. In the light of the case being decided on merit, I.A. 1/2012 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed.