SRI M.M. SWAMY, ADVOCATE) v. SRI SHARATH S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES)

#1. SRI M.R. RAMESH S/O M.V. RADHAKRISHNA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, MADHAVA JEWELLERY MART, SHOP UNIT NO.241 (OLD NO.386/30), GROUND FLOOR, 5TH BLOCK, RAJA MARKET, AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002. (BY SRI ASHOK HARNAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.M. SWAMY, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:

#1. SRI P. SANDEEP TRICHY S/O T.N. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, PROP: ORIGINAL BABY PRAKASH DIAMONDS, R/AT NO.3005, TATVAM, WATER TANK ROAD, GIRINAGAR 4TH PHASE, NEAR KATRIGUPPE WATER TANK, BANGALORE-560 085. (BY SRI ARUN GOVINDRAJ & SRI SHARATH S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:4777 CRP No. 5 of 2024 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE PASSED IN S.C. NO.1596/2019 BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, ON DATED 11.10.2023 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO GRANT ANY RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THE COURT MAY DEEM IFT AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

#1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2023 passed in S.C.No.1596/2019 by the I Additional Small Causes Judge & MACT, Bengaluru, the defendant therein has filed this petition.

#2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. Respondent purchased the property in the year 2018 to expand his business as he is also the owner of the adjoining shop. After issuing notice in accordance with law, the respondent had preferred S.CNo.1596/2019. After trial, based on the evidence let-in, the trial Court has passed the following:- - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4777 CRP No. 5 of 2024 ORDER "The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with cost. The defendant is hereby directed to quit and vacate the suit schedule property and hand over the vacant possession of suit schedule premises to the plaintiff within three months from the date of this order. Failing which the plaintiff at liberty to proceed with due process of law. As far as damages are concerned there shall be separate enquiry as contemplated under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC. Draw decree accordingly."

#3. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant therein has preferred this petition.

#4. The case of the petitioner is that he is in jewellery business and he has occupied the premises from nearly 40 years and evicting from the same will result in him not having place to run his business. But the same cannot be a ground for setting aside the well reasoned order of the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:4777 CRP No. 5 of 2024 trial Court. The petitioner is unable to point out any error in the order passed by the trial Court. In the course of the arguments, the petitioner submitted that if reasonable period of five years is given to him to vacate the suit schedule property, he would vacate the same. However, the learned counsel for the respondent upon instructions submits that he is willing to grant two years time to the petitioner to vacate the suit schedule property, which I think is reasonable. Hence, the following:- ORDER i. The petitioner is directed to quit and hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent within a period of two years from today, subject to payment of rents that has been agreed upon. ii. The order passed in S.C.No.1596/2019 by the I Additional Small Causes Judge & MACT, Bengaluru, stands modified to that extent. iii. The Civil Revision petition is accordingly, disposed of. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4777 CRP No. 5 of 2024 iv. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- JUDGE VMB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23