REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SMT. LAKSHAMMA Appellant

V/S

B.P. THIRUMALA SETTY Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JIJAR SINGH V. MOHINDER KAUR [REFERRED TO]
N.T. BHARATHI V. HOTEL OLYMPIA [REFERRED TO]
V. RAJASWARI V. BOMBAY TYRES INTL. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
G. DORESWAMY NAIDU V. B.N. PATIL [REFERRED TO]
MURALIDHARA V. B. RE. SESHADRI [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL V. C. CHANDRASHEKARAN [REFERRED TO]
PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU V. MOTOR AND GENERAL TRADERS [REFERRED TO]
SANGRAN SINGH VS. ELECTION TRIBUNI KOTAH [REFERRED TO]
BABULAL GAYAPRASAD VS. COLLECTOR DAMOH [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL RANI VS. NAUBAT RAI AHLUWALIA [REFERRED TO]
MANNALAL KHETAN VS. KEDAR NATH KHETAM [REFERRED TO]
PRECISION STEEL AND ENGINEERING WORKS VS. PREM DEVA NIRANJAN DEVA TAYAL [REFERRED TO]
EMC STEEL LIMITED CALCUTTA SMT SANTOSH SETHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT SINGH KALRA MAHENDRA RAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA AND COLONEL ASHOKAPURI [REFERRED TO]
N S M AHMAD JAMALIA BEEVI VS. D N SHAH [REFERRED TO]
UMESH VERMA VS. JAIDEVIBHANDARI [REFERRED TO]
P R DESHPANDE VS. MARUTI BALARAM HAIBATTI [REFERRED TO]
J CHATTERJEE VS. MOHINDER KAUR UPPAL [REFERRED TO]
MARIYAM BEGUM VS. BASHEERNISA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
N D THANDANI VS. ARNAVAZ RUSTOM PRINTER [REFERRED TO]
P SURYANARAYANA VS. K S MUDDUGOWRAMMA [REFERRED TO]
Konijeti Venkayya VS. Thammana Peda Venkata Subbarao [REFERRED TO]
RAMACHANDRAPPA VS. NAGARATHNA BAI [REFERRED TO]
KHANDERAO SUBBARAO NADAGIR VS. HULAGAVVA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. LAKANPAL NATIONAL LTD VS. K.M. KONDAPPA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in HRRP 454/02 & 455/02 is none other than the tenant under the respondent landlord at premises No. 609, V. Main, (Sanchi Honnamma Road), Pipe Line, Srinagar, Banashankari I Stage, I Block, Bangalore-50. The entire premises consists of two non-residential and one residential portions. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a non- residential premises taken on lease for the purpose of conducting tuition. The brief facts that led to filing of these revision petitions are as under :

(2.) The respondent-landlord has instituted HRC Petition 10115/00 under Sec. 21(1)(a) & (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act i.e. on the ground of tenant being a chronic defaulter and also for bonafide and reasonable occupation on the ground that his brother is no more and he has to provide accommodation to the wife and children of his brother. In the adjacent portion itself, the petitioner is living along with his wife. Earlier, HRC 437/94 was instituted against the very tenant wherein an application under Sec. 29 of the Rent Control Act came to be filed. An order came to be passed directing the tenant to pay the arrears of rent. However, eviction petition came to be dismissed on 1-8-1998. The said petition was filed on the ground of requirement of the brother of the landlord. The present petition (premises ?), according to the landlord, is required for the family of the brother who is no more. He intends to have the family of his brother near by him so that he would be able to look after them. The landlord is the only elder member in the family. In the present eviction petition, the rents are claimed from 1-7-1998 onwards.

(3.) According to the tenant, the present petition is nothing but an harassment in order to achieve the vindictive motive of the landlord to evict the petitioner herein on some ground or the other.

Click here to view full judgment.

SMT. LAKSHAMMA Vs. B.P. THIRUMALA SETTY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address