Review Petition No. 550 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1956 RP No. 550 of 2024 C/W RP No. 486 of 2024 RP No. 531 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA REVIEW PETITION NO. 550 OF 2024 C/W REVIEW PETITION NO. 486 OF 2024 REVIEW PETITION NO. 531 OF 2024 IN RP No. 550/2024 BETWEEN: 1. RAVI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O K KUTTY SHETTY, RESIDING AT BANNANJE UDUPI - 576101
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. SANJEEVA K POOJARY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE KALU POOJARY, RESIDING AT DWARAKA 76, BADAGABETTU, BAILUR, UDUPI - 576101 2. SHANKAR K POOJARY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE KALU POOJARY, RESIDING AT DWARAKA 76, BADAGABETTU, BAILUR, UDUPI - 576101 (BY SRI. AMRUTHESH C., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1956 RP No. 550 of 2024 C/W RP No. 486 of 2024 RP No. 531 of 2024 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908 AS AMENDED PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT A REVIEW OF THE ORAL ORDER DATED 24TH JULY, 2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.15/2022, ETC. IN RP NO. 486/2024 BETWEEN: 1. RAVI SHETTY S/O K KUTTY SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A BANNANJE UDUPI-576101 (BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY., ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND: 1. SANJEEVA K POOJARY S/O LATE KALU POOJARY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A DWARAKA 76, BADAGABETTU, BAILUR, UDUPI-576101. 2. SHANKAR K POOJARY S/O LATE KALU POOJARY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A DWARAKA 76, BADAGABETTU, BAILUR, UDUPI-576101 (BY SRI. AMRUTHESH C., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2) ...RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE I OF THE CPC, 1908 AS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1956 RP No. 550 of 2024 C/W RP No. 486 of 2024 RP No. 531 of 2024 AMENDED, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT A REVIEW OF THE ORAL ORDER DATED 24TH JULY, 2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7764/2022 (HRC), ETC. IN RP NO. 531/2024 BETWEEN: 1. RAVI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O K KUTTY SHETTY, RESIDING AT BANNANJE, UDUPI 576 101 (BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY., ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND: 1. SANJEEVA K POOJARY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE KALU POOJARY RESIDING AT DWARAKA, 76, BADAGABETTU, BAILUR, UDUPI 576 101. 2. SHANKAR K POOJARY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE KALU POOJARY RESIDING AT DWARAKA, 76, BADAGABETTU, BAILUR, UDUPI - 576 101 (BY SRI. AMRUTHESH C., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2) ...RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE I OF THE CPC, 1908 AS AMENDED PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1956 RP No. 550 of 2024 C/W RP No. 486 of 2024 RP No. 531 of 2024 PLEASED TOI.GRANT A REVIEW OF THE ORAL ORDER DATED 24TH JULY, 2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.30/2019, ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. WP.No.7764/2022 was clubbed with HRRP.No.30/2019 and HRRP.No.15/2022 and were
Decision
disposed of on 24.07.2024. 2. While disposing of these petitions, this Court had affirmed the impugned order of eviction in HRRP.No.30/2019 and had gone on - to grant six months time for the petitioner – tenant to vacate. This order was passed on the premise that an order of eviction had been passed in RCA.No.7/2010 and the same was affirmed by the dismissal of RRP.No.6/2013. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1956 RP No. 550 of 2024 C/W RP No. 486 of 2024 RP No. 531 of 2024 3. However, these review petitions are filed contending that RCA.No.7/2010 in which an order of eviction was passed was a conditional order which would come into effect only if the tenant had failed to pay arrears as determined in the final order. 4. It is contended that the arrears of rent as ordered in RCA No.7/2010 were in fact paid and therefore, there was no order of eviction in force and consequently, the subsequent order passed by this Court granting six months time for vacation on the premise that there was an order of eviction would be erroneous. This Court was considering three petitions that were pending before it. The first one was WP.No.7764/2022 that had been filed challenging an interim order by which jural relationship between the parties was sought to be adjudicated in RCA.No.3/2017. 5. 6. 7. The second one was HRRP.No.30/2019 which was in respect of an order of eviction that was passed in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1956 RP No. 550 of 2024 C/W RP No. 486 of 2024 RP No. 531 of 2024 RCA.No.7/2010, and was affirmed in RRP No.6/2013 which was a conditional order. 8. The third one was HRRP.No.15/2022 which arose out of an interim order passed in RCA.No.3/2017 regarding the jurisdiction of the Rent Court to entertain the petition, since it was contended by the tenant that it was only the Commercial Court which has the jurisdiction. 9. By the order of this Court, the orders which were impugned in WP.No.7764/2022 and HRRP.No.15/2022 were affirmed and the petitions were dismissed. 10. However, the order of dismissal passed by this Court in HRRP.No.30/2019 on the premise that an order of eviction was in force would be erroneous, since the order of eviction passed in RCA.No.7/2010 was a conditional order and the condition to pay the arrears was complied with. In that view of the matter, the order passed by this Court will have to be reviewed - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1956 RP No. 550 of 2024 C/W RP No. 486 of 2024 RP No. 531 of 2024 insofar as it relates to the direction to handover vacant possession pursuant to the order passed in HRRP.No.30/2019. 11. Learned Senior Counsel submits that pursuant to this order, the Rent Court has closed the proceedings in RCA.No.3/2017 which was filed seeking for eviction and an interim order granted was impugned before this Court. 12. Since it is held that the order of eviction is not subsisting by virtue of condition imposed by the Rent Court having being complied with by the tenant, the Rent Court is directed to restore RCA.No.3/2017 and decide the petition on merits and pass appropriate orders. 13. Having regard to the fact that the eviction proceedings were initiated in the year 2017, it would be appropriate to direct the Rent Court to dispose of RCA.No.3/2017 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1956 RP No. 550 of 2024 C/W RP No. 486 of 2024 RP No. 531 of 2024 14. Since the parties are represented before this Court through their counsel, they are directed to appear before the Rent Court in RCA.No.3/2017 on 10.02.2025. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13