Skip to content


Piyari Bai (Since Deceased) By L.Rs. Vs. K.H. Vasantha and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberHRRP No. 127 of 2012
Judge
AppellantPiyari Bai (Since Deceased) By L.Rs.
RespondentK.H. Vasantha and Others
Excerpt:
.....under sub-section (2) of section 35 of the karnataka rent act, 1999 [for short, the act], was filed for restoration of the possession of the petition premises in favour of the tenant. 6. it has been proved that the landlord did not occupy the premises in question, although a decree was obtained by the landlord on the ground of reasonable requirement. it was, also, proved that within the mischief period of three years, the property was transferred to a third party by way of an absolute sale. 7. still, the trial court dismissed the application for restoration of possession, as it was filed beyond the period of limitation for maintaining such an application. 8. rule 22 of the karnataka rent control rules, 2001, provides that an application for restoration of possession under.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: This Revision Petition is filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka rent Act, 1999, against the order Dated 23.5.2012 Passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 224 of 2010, on the file of the Chief Judge, court of small causes, Bangalore, dismissing the Petition as Barred by limitation, and Etc.)

1. This is an application for substitution consequent upon the death of the original revisional petitioner. The original revisional petitioner having died, her heirs and legal representatives have come forward for their substitution in the place of the original revisional petitioner.

2. As the right to pursue the revision petition survives with the applicants in IA I of 2013, I allow the application and direct substitution in the revisional petition. The learned advocate for the revisional petitioner is directed to file a revised memorandum of parties by two weeks. ORDER IN MAIN PETITION:

3. By consent of the parties, the revisional petition is taken for hearing.

4. A mischievous landlord obtained an order of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement against the tenant, but instead of occupying the said premises, sold it to a third party on July 12, 2010 by executing a registered sale deed.

5. Thereafter, an application under sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 [for short, the Act], was filed for restoration of the possession of the petition premises in favour of the tenant.

6. It has been proved that the landlord did not occupy the premises in question, although a decree was obtained by the landlord on the ground of reasonable requirement. It was, also, proved that within the mischief period of three years, the property was transferred to a third party by way of an absolute sale.

7. Still, the trial court dismissed the application for restoration of possession, as it was filed beyond the period of limitation for maintaining such an application.

8. Rule 22 of the Karnataka Rent Control Rules, 2001, provides that an application for restoration of possession under sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act is to be filed within sixty days from the date of transfer of the property to a third party.

9. The present application was filed beyond the limitation period of sixty days. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application holding that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation.

10. I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial court. Therefore, with a heavy heart, I am dismissing this revisional petition.

11. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //