High Court Modifies Ejectment Decree to Grant Six Months to Vacate, Subject to Payment Conditions and Contempt Undertaking. Regular First Appeal Under Section 96 CPC Accepted Based on Appellant’s Undertaking to Peaceably Vacate Premises by January 2021.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against a judgment and decree dated 02.12.2019 in Original Suit No.6814/2013 by the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit for ejectment. The appellant, A.L. Satyanarayana Gupta, was the tenant in the subject premises, and the respondent, Sri Vishwanatha, was the landlord. The appellant's counsel, after arguing the matter at length, submitted that the appellant undertook to peaceably vacate the premises in good condition within six months and sought modification of the decree only to that extent. The court, having regard to the fair stand of the appellant, granted a period of six months for vacating, subject to the following conditions: (a) payment of all arrears of rent by 20th July 2020 if not already paid; (b) payment of current rent by the 5th of each month, with rent doubled for delay exceeding one week; (c) the undertaking to be treated as given to the court, violation of which would entail contempt proceedings; (d) if the premises are not delivered by 5th January 2021, exemplary rent of Rs.25,000 per month for the first three months and Rs.50,000 per month thereafter; and (e) upon violation of any condition, the decree becomes immediately executable. The appeal was disposed of without costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree for Ejectment - Modification of Decree on Undertaking - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96 - In a first appeal against an ejectment decree, the appellant undertook to vacate within six months and the court accepted the undertaking and imposed conditions for payment of arrears, current rent, and exemplary rent for delay, and treated the undertaking as one given to court, entailing contempt for violation. Held that the decree was modified accordingly to grant time for vacating. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the ejectment decree could be modified to grant the appellant time to vacate the suit premises on terms

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal disposed of; appellant granted six months to vacate subject to conditions: payment of arrears by 2020-07-20, current rent by 5th of month with penalty for delay, undertaking to court with contempt consequences, exemplary rent of Rs.25,000 per month for first three months and Rs.50,000 thereafter for delay beyond 2021-01-05, and decree executable upon any violation.

Law Points

  • Modification of decree based on appellant's undertaking
  • Section 96 CPC
  • court's inherent power to grant time for vacating premises
  • undertaking to court as basis for contempt
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 20

Regular First Appeal No.67 of 2020 (EJE)

2020-07-03

Krishna S. Dixit

Smt. D. Sudha for Sri G.K. Bhat

A.L. Satyanarayana Gupta

Sri Vishwanatha

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

First appeal against ejectment decree

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought modification of decree to allow time to vacate premises

Filing Reason

Appeal against judgment and decree in Original Suit No.6814/2013 directing ejectment

Previous Decisions

The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment on 2019-12-02

Issues

Whether the decree for ejectment could be modified to grant the appellant time to vacate on terms

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel, after arguing at length, undertook to vacate the premises within six months and sought modification of the decree to that extent

Ratio Decidendi

An appellate court may, in exercise of its power under Section 96 CPC, modify an ejectment decree by granting the judgment-debtor time to vacate upon an undertaking to the court, with conditions securing compliance, and treat violation of the undertaking as contempt.

Judgment Excerpts

The Learned counsel for the appellant having vehemently argued the matter at length, now fairly submits that the appellant undertakes to vacate the subject premises peaceably and in good condition within a period of six months and only to that extent the decree may be modified. the undertaking given by the appellant for vacating the premises shall be treated as an undertaking given to this court as well in addition to the one given to the other side, so that its violation entails contempt actions

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 2019-12-02 in O.S. No.6814/2013 by the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit for ejectment. The appeal was heard and disposed of on 2020-07-03.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Applicant in Abetment of Suicide Case. Show-Cause Notice Issued in Official Capacity Not Abetment Under Section 306 IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Modifies Ejectment Decree to Grant Six Months to Vacate, Subject to Payment Conditions and Contempt Undertaking. Regular First Appeal Under Section 96 CPC Accepted Based on Appellant’s Undertaking to Peaceably Vacate Premises by January ...