VASANTHKUMAR D SHAH Vs. SUGANDHA RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making in all these petitions, hence with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petitions arc clubbed, heard together and arc disposed of by this common order.

(2.) FACTS in brief: i CRP 170/2006: the petitioner on 8. 6. 1967 and 24. 6. 1968 was inducted as a tenant of shop premises No. 217/d and 217/c, 27th cross, 8 'f' mam, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-11, respectively, under the respondent-landlord, who issued a notice dated 17. 6. 2002 determining the tenancy w. e. f. 31. 7. 2002 to which the petitioner caused a reply dated 23. 7. 2002. The landlord on 18. 12. 2002 instituted SC 2078/2002 before the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, for ejectment, which was opposed by filing a written statement of the petitioner inter alia contending that the two tenancies being separate and distinct, on two dates, arc protected by the Karnataka rent Act, 1999 and that there is a waiver of notice to quit. The 2nd plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 produced four documents marked as Ex. P-1 to P-4 while the petitioner-defendant examined himself as DW-1 produced two documents marked as exts. D-1 and D-2. The trial court having considered the evidence both oral and documentary allowed the suit by judgment and decree dated 19. 1. 2006 granting two months time to the petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the property. II CRP 1045/2005 the petitioner's tenancy over a portion of the ground floor of the non-residential premises No. 35, K. G. road, Bangalore, under the respondent landlord when determined by the quit notice dated 17. 3. 2003, was responded to by a reply dated 3. 4. 2003, Non compliance of the demand in the notice, impelled the landlord to institute SC 815/2003 for ejectment, before the Chief Judge, small Causes Court, Bangalore. The petitioner entered appearance and opposed the suit by filing written statement dated 4. 9. 2003 inter alia contending that the quit notice is contrary to law and the failure to demolish, reconstruct and redeliver possession of parties of the premises, in terms of the compromise recorded in the order in an earlier petition for eviction in HRC 80/1980 filed by the respondent against M/s Lakur and Company and another tenant under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the respondent was disentitled to a decree for ejectment. The landford Sangha examined its Secretary as PW-1, produced three documents marked as exs. P-1 to P-3 while the petitioner examined its Accountant and Power of Attorney Holder as dw-1 produced 11 documents marked as Exts. D-1 to D-11. The Trial court allowed the suit by judgment and decree dated 21. 9. 2005 granting two months time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of tenanted premises. III CRP 1046/2005 the petitioner's tenancy over a portion of the ground floor and 1st floor of the non-residential premises No. 35, K. G road. Bangalore, belonging to the respondent landlord, when determined by quit notice dated 17. 3. 2003 was responded to by a reply dated 3. 4. 2003. Failure to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the said premises impelled the landlord to institute SC 813/2003 for ejectment, before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore. The petitioner entered appearance, opposed the suit by tiling statement of objections dated 4. 9. 2003, interalia contending that the quit notice is contrary to law and the failure to demolish, reconstruct and re-deliver possession of the portions of the premises in terms of the compromise recorded in the order in an earlier eviction petition No. HRC 80/1980, filed by the respondent landlord against M/s Lakur and Company and another tenant, under the Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961, the respondent was disentitled to a decree for ejectment the landlord-Sangha examined its Secretary as PW-1 produced six documents marked as exs. P-1 to P-6 while the petitioner examined its Accountant and Power of Attorney Holder as dw-1 produced thirteen documents marked as Exts. D-1 to D-13. The Trial court allowed the suit by judgment and decree dated 21. 9. 2005 granting two months time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises. IV CRP 153/2006 the petitioner's tenancy over shop premises No. 2094/1 (K 33) Thyagaraja circle, K. R. Mohalla, mysore, when determined by a quit notice dated 1. 2. 2003 was responded to by a reply dated 22/2. 2003. The petitioner having not complied with the demand in the quit notice, impelled the respondent landlord to institute SO 157/2003 for ejectment, on the file of the Judge, Court of small Causes, Mysore which was opposed by filing written statement dated 20. 10. 2003 of the petitioner, inter alia contending, that the deposit of monthly rents into the bank account of the landlord even after filing of the suit tantamount to waiver of notice to quit the Trial court recorded the depositions of the landlord as PW-1 who produced four documents marked as Ex. P-1 to P-4; while that of the petitioner - tenant as PW-1 who produced one document marked as Ex. P-1 and also recorded the depositions of the Court Commissioner CW-1 and marked documents Ex. C-1 to C-4. By judgment and decree dated 22. 12. 2005, the Trial court directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises within three month's time thereof.

(3.) FOR the purpose of convenience, I think it proper to deal with the contentions touching upon the facts in each of the petitioners, in the first instance.