BANGALORE-21 v. BANGALORE-21

1. SRI B S SRIDHAR S/O LATE.SHANKARNARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1576/22, 2ND CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE-21 ... PETITIONER (BY SMT : REKHA M ADVOCATE) AND:

SRI B N RAMESH S/O LATE SRI B.N.MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA, SMT. R.PADMINI, D/O SRI. B.N.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, AT NO.1576/22, 2ND CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE-21 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B L NANDA KUMAR ADVOCATE) ----- 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 4.10.12 PASSED ON IA FILED U/O XVI RULE 1 & 2 R/W SEC 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE FOR SEEKING SUMMONING OF THE WITNESSES OF PETITIONER ( PRL) IN HRC NO.178/11 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CUASES, BANGALORE AS PER ANNX-A TO THE PETITION. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

The petitioner herein is the respondent in a petition filed under Section 27(2)(a)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 filed by the respondent herein for eviction of the petitioner. As evident from the impugned order, the petitioner at several stages sought to delay and protract the proceedings. Finally, when the petitioner was compelled to tender his evidence, after having tendered his evidence, the petitioner did not present 3 himself for cross-examination and when compelled to do so by the circumstances, as a last resort, has filed an application seeking to summon the petitioner himself since evidence had been tendered through a Power of Attorney holder and which, according to the petitioner herein, was vague, as it did not allude to the details of ownership and was hence intended to be elicited from the petitioner himself. This the Court below felt was a strange procedure, as it was not for the petitioner herein to summon the land lord - petitioner. If the landlord – petitioner did not choose to give evidence through himself personally and has done so through the medium of a Power of Attorney holder, the Court has rightly held the application as being mischievous and that it was intended only to stall the proceedings. There is no fault to be found with the impugned order. It is to be observed that petitioner – landlord is the dominus litus and chooses the manner in which evidence shall be tendered and the adequacy thereof. It is not for this petitioner to summon the landlord on the pretext that the evidence tendered was insufficient as regards the title and ownership. Accordingly, the petition is rejected with costs of 4 Rs.1,000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner herein before the trial Court to the landlord at the next date of hearing, if he chooses to defend the proceedings. SD/- JUDGE