AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy
The matter coming on for admission, the learned counsel for the appellant is heard at length. It is noticed that there was a dispute about the entitlement of the respondent to seek eviction against the present appellant. The Appellant was the defendant in a suit for ejectment. The primary contention of the appellant is to the effect that the premises in question was taken on lease from the mother of the respondent. The eviction proceedings having been initiated under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and the same having resulted in a decree being passed in favour of the respondent, the same was questioned in revision before this Court. This Court, on consideration of the merits of the case, had held that all the legal heirs of the deceased landlord ought to have joined the proceedings and bad remanded the matter. Notwithstanding, such a finding. thereafter tile law having changed, a suit for ejectment was initiated. However, the respondent did not choose to file the ejectment proceedings along with other legal representatives on the footing that the property in question had been bequeathed under a will to the respondent. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that though such a claim was mad, the original will was never produced before the Court, therefore, it could not be said that the said will was proved to the satisfaction of the Court and in the face of that circumstance, the ejectment suit having been decreed, results in a miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel would further plead that the premises is a small bunk shop on the outskirts of Bangalore City and is the sole source of living for the appellant and therefore the matter would have to be considered with circumspection, so that, injustice does not result to the appellant by virtue of such a glaring infirmity being present.
The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would seek to justify the judgment and point out that there was no dispute amongst the legal representatives of the deceased landlord as to the entitlement of the respondent in claiming the suit property, exclusively. The same was bequeathed in favour of the respondent and therefore the proceedings had been initiated by the respondent in his capacity as an absolute owner and it was not a proceeding where the respondent was required to establish the will beyond all reasonable doubt in not having produced the original document and to establish the same. The fact that there was no objection from any quarter, including the other legal representatives of the deceased, would not disentitle the respondent claiming the property as representing the family. Therefore, the ejectment suit having been decreed, is in accordance with law and does not entitle the appellant to raise such a ground as to a serious infirmity that goes to the root of the matter. While the learned counsel for the appellant would insist that is indeed an infirmity, which goes to the root of the matter. Incidentally, it is found that there is a serious dispute as to rents that were due and payable and it is apparent that on judgement and decree for ejectment and on termination of the lease, the relationship itself comes to a close and in the absence of any determination of damages and mesne profits, it may be open for the appellant to take advantage of the same and deny the arrears payable as well as the damages to which the respondent would be entitled to. In that view of the matter, the continuation of this appeal, which was filed in the year 2009 and only now being listed before the Court for Admission, definitely, does result in a disadvantage to the respondent and deprive the respondent of valuable property notwithstanding that it may be a small bunk shop situated in the outskirts of Bangalore City. Accordingly, it stands to reason and justice that the judgement and decree of the Trial Court be affirmed. No ground is made out for admission. The Appeal is rejected. However, in the interest of justice, in order to enable the appellant to make alternative arrangements, one years'' time is granted from today to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises on or before 31.5.2013, subject to the appellant paying all arrears up to date and to pay the amounts at the rate of ''400/- per month, commencing from the month of June 2012 to end of May 2013, or ''4800, in all. The same shall be paid in advance within six months from today. The appellant having been granted this extension of time, would neither be entitled to challenge this judgment nor seek extension of any further time. Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected on the above condition. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit before this Court.