SMT JAYAMMA v. LATE THIPPAIAH @ TIBBAIAH

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SRI KUMARA, S/O SMT JAYAMMA AND LATE THIPPAIAH @ TIBBAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS

4. SMT BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR

5. KUMARI ANVITHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR,

6. KUMARI LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4985 HRRP No. 13 of 2025 HC-KAR PETITIONER NO.4(a), (b) AND (c) ARE RESIDING AT OLD NO 232, 18TH MAIN ROAD, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560021.

7. MR MARUTHI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 7A SMT SAVITHA, W/O LATE MARUTHI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 7B KUMARI VARSHAV, D/O LATE MARUTHI, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, 7C MASTER AKASH, S/O LATE MARUTHI, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, SINCE 2 ARE 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER/ NATURAL GAURDIAN, SMT SAVITHA, D/O LATE MARUTHI, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.3/1, (OLD NO.232), 18TH MAIN ROAD, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 021.

8. MR MANJA @ MANJU, S/O SMT JAYAMMA AND LATE THIPPAIAH ALIAS TIBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS PETITIONERS 1 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO 23/1, OLD NO 232, 18TH MAIN ROAD, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560021 (BY SRI ANDANAPPA GURAPPA BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4985 HRRP No. 13 of 2025 HC-KAR AND: SRI RAMU SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRS 1 SMT. SHANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI. RAMU R/AT 232, 18TH MAIN ROAD, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560021. 2 SRI. R. PRAKASH. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. RAMU, R/AT NO 42, 18TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, SUBRAMANYANAGAR,BANGALORE-560021. 3 SMT. SHOBHA. R, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O LATE SRI. RAMU, R/AT 232, 18TH MAIN ROAD, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SREEDHAR N G, ADVOCATE) THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT., 1999, AGAINST THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2025 PASSED IN HRC.NO.594/2006 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE , ALLOWING THE MEMO DATED 10.09.2024 ALONGWITH COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.08.2024 PASSED IN HRRP NO.107/2013 (EVICTION). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:4985 HRRP No. 13 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This Petition is filed assailing the order dated 30.01.2025 in HRC No.594/2006 on the file of Small Causes Court, Bangalore. The petitioners were the respondents in the aforementioned proceedings before the Trial Court.

2. In terms of the impugned order, HRC No.594/2006 is allowed. The present petitioners were directed to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property to the contesting respondents. Two months time was granted to comply the order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the respondents are not the owners of the petition property. It is his further submission that the matter was remanded in terms of the order in HRRP No.107/2013 and in terms of the said order, the landlords were permitted to raise additional grounds available under law and without amending the petition, without leading any further evidence, the landlords have sought eviction and acting on the memo, the Court has passed the order. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4985 HRRP No. 13 of 2025 HC-KAR

4. Learned counsel for the respondents would urge that in HRRP No.274/2010, this Court has held that the present petitioners are defaulters and the property is to be demolished in terms of the direction issued by the Corporation and the premises is required for the bonafide use of the landlords. This Court in the said proceeding in terms of order dated 09.08.2012 has set-aside the order dated

10.08.2010 in HRC No.594/2006 in so far as its finding regarding jural relationship of landlord and tenants and directed the Trial Court to consider the contention relating to the jural relationship. The remaining part of the order dated 09.08.2012 on points No.1 to 3 in the order dated 10.08.2010 in HRC No.594/2006 is confirmed.

5. It is also urged that the Trial Court on 27.04.2013 passed an order allowing the application filed by the tenant under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Said order is called in question by the landlord in HRRP No.107/2013. And the same is allowed vide order dated 23.08.2024 and Court has held that respondents are the landlords and the petitioners are the tenants.

6. Said order in HRRP No.107/2013 is called in question by filing SLP No.4332/2025. Special Leave Petition is dismissed. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:4985 HRRP No. 13 of 2025 HC-KAR

7. Thus, the finding that the respondents are the landlords has attained finality. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents would urge that even without any further evidence the Trial Court is justified in passing the order for eviction.

8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

9. The following point arises for consideration: Whether the petitioners have made out a case for entertaining the petition and to interfere with the impugned order?

10. From the impugned order it is noticed that initially in HRC No.594/2006, the Court has recorded a finding that the tenants have defaulted in repaying the rent. The premises is in a dilapidated condition and required to be demolished and the premises is required for the bonafide use of the landlords. The said findings have been questioned by filing HRRP No.274/2010. Though the said the HRRP was allowed in part and the matter was remitted to consider the jural relationship, the finding on aforementioned three points have attained finality and not been disturbed by this Court. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:4985 HRRP No. 13 of 2025 HC-KAR

11. Thus, the Court is of the view that the landlords were not required to lead any further evidence to establish their contention relating to the default on the part of the tenants, and the bonafide use of the property by the landlords.

12. Since the matter was remanded to consider relationship within the parties, the Court recorded a finding that relationship is not established. Later, the said order was called in question in HRRP No.107/2013. This Court in terms of order dated

23.08.2024 held that relationship is established and remitted the matter to the Trial Court to decide the case on merits.

13. The Trial Court thereafter passed the impugned order holding that the landlords are entitled to evict the tenants. It is relevant to notice that order dated 23.08.2024 in HRRP No.107/2013 has attained finality as the Special Leave Petition filed by the tenants is dismissed in Special Leave Petition No.4332/2025.

14. Since, all the relevant points required for eviction have been answered in favour of the landlords and against the tenants and said findings attained finality, the Trial Court is justified in passing the order for eviction. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:4985 HRRP No. 13 of 2025 HC-KAR

15. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of Trial Court.

16. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed.

17. Petitioner shall handover the premises within two months from today. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38