Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1274 (KAR)

K. Surendra Kumar v. S. Yashodamma

2013-11-06

ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI

body2013
JUDGMENT : Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 1.8.2013 passed by the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in O.S. No. 26842/2011 directing him (appellant - defendant) to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises within three months. At the very outset Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly indicates that the appellant is only pressing for the grant of reasonable time for vacating the suit schedule premises. He submits that the appellant is eking his livelihood by doing his car re-selling business in the suit schedule premises. 2. Sri. Nisar Sab, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that 3 to 6 months' time may be granted to the appellant to vacate the suit schedule premises. He submits that the appellant is paying the monthly rent at the paltry rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month, though the prevailing monthly rent for the suit schedule property in the area in question is more than Rs. 50,000/-. 3. The parties have subsequently settled the matter. The appellant has filed the affidavit. The operative portion of the affidavit reads as follows:- 5. I submit that after hearing the arguments, I had undertaken before this Hon'ble Court that I am ready and willing to vacate the premises on or before 05.11.2014 subject to payment of increased rent of Rs. 22,000/- per month commencing from 05.11.2013 which is agreed upon by the respondent/landlord subject to the condition that the said rent continues to be paid every month before 5th of each month through demand draft. 6. I further submit that I will not induct any third party into the premises and undertake to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent/landlord without driving the respondent to take any legal action like filing of execution petition subject to refund of Rs. 75,000/- was paid as advance by me to the respondent/landlord before 15 days earlier to 05.11.2014 for which the respondent/landlord has agreed. 4. Recording the understanding reached between the parties, I dispose of this appeal by passing the following order:- (i) The time is granted to the appellant to vacate the suit schedule premises on or before 5.11.2014. 75,000/- was paid as advance by me to the respondent/landlord before 15 days earlier to 05.11.2014 for which the respondent/landlord has agreed. 4. Recording the understanding reached between the parties, I dispose of this appeal by passing the following order:- (i) The time is granted to the appellant to vacate the suit schedule premises on or before 5.11.2014. (ii) The appellant shall pay the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.22,000/- with effect from 1.11.2013 before 5th of every month until he vacates the suit schedule premises. (iii) The appellant shall not induct any third parties into the suit schedule premises. (iv) Should the appellant default in adhering to any of the conditions stipulated hereinabove, it shall be open to the respondent to resort to the initiation of the proceedings for the execution of the ejectment decree. (v) The amount paid by way of security deposit by the appellant to the respondent shall be refunded by the respondent to the appellant at the time of the appellant's vacating the suit schedule premises after deducting the amounts towards damage to the suit schedule premises, if any. 5. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. The office is directed to refund the entire court fee to the appellant's side.