Smt. Sulochana Bai @ Kamala Bai and P.M. Gopala Krishna Rao vs Chinnubai Appaiah Rao Malode Kalyana Mentapa Trust

Anand Byrareddy

The matter coming on for admission, the learned Counsel for the appellants was heard at length. The appellants were the defendants before the trial Court in a suit for abetment. The appellants had set up a defense of adverse possession while specifically denying that the plaintiff was not the successor of the original owner and his claim for adoption under a Will as well as the Will executed by the original owner of the suit schedule property was not established before the trial Court. Further it was contended that, the property was covered under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and therefore, it is the Rent Court alone, which had the jurisdiction over the suit schedule property especially having regard to the dimensions of the suit schedule property, which was 15 x 34 ft; even if it is accepted that the appellants were indeed tenants under the original owner, it is these contentions which are raised in the suit as well, as the Court below has addressed the same and has arrived at a finding on the basis of its reasoning, which is not capable of being dislodged notwithstanding the vehement contentions putforth by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Therefore, the appeal is rejected.

In the interest of justice, however and at the instance of the learned Counsel for the appellants that, the appellants have been in possession for several decades and the immediate abetment of the appellants would result in their being on the streets and therefore, he seeks reasonable time to enable the appellants especially appellant No. 1, who is aged and unable to make alternative arrangements and seeks reasonable time of two years to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premise.

Though the appellants have not made out any case on merits, their further request for grant of two years time is not tenable. It would, however, be reasonable to grant one year''s time at the most to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises. While granting one year''s time from today to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises, the appeal stands rejected. The appellants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises on or before the end of April, 2013. The appellants not having made out any case at all for the admission of the appeal would not be entitled for any further extension of time after the expiry of one year''s time granted by the above order. The appellants to file an affidavit undertaking to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises as directed, without any further procrastination by filing further applications and seeking extension of time, within two weeks.