- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4257 WP No. 2345 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2345 OF 2025 (HRC) BETWEEN: SUNEEL SIVARAMA PILLAI, S/O LATE SHRI NEELAKANDAN SIVARAMA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.43, ANNAYAPPA GARDEN, 9TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 075. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARGAVA D. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. JAYARAJ AGED 58 YEARS, PROP. RUCHI BAKERY SHOP NO.5, GROUND FLOOR, PROPERTY NO. 1492/702 (NEW NO.6), 6TH MAIN ROAD, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BBMP WARD NO.74, BENGALURU - 560 075. …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REQUIRING THE LEARNED SMALL CAUSES JUDGE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OF HRC NO.33/2019 WITHIN A TIME BOUND MANNER. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4257 WP No. 2345 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed seeking a suitable direction to the Small Causes Court to hear and dispose of HRC No.33/2019 within a time bound manner. The petitioner has annexed the documents to prima facie establish that the petition is filed in the year 2019. The petitioner's evidence is recorded in the year 2019. The evidence of respondent is yet to commence. It is noticed that interim applications are filed by the respondent and thereafter, there is no progress in the case and the matter is not yet finally decided. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim reported in (2017) 8 SCC 611, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has said that object of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4257 WP No. 2345 of 2025 ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases between the landlord and tenant. Keeping in mind the aforementioned observations, the following direction is issued. 4. This Court is of the view that if a direction is issued to expedite the matter, same may not cause any prejudice to the respondent. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of. 5. The trial Court is directed to hear and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Since this Court is passing this order without notice to respondent, liberty is reserved to the respondent to move this matter, in case the respondent is aggrieved by the order. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of both the parties. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT: BHK