- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41646 CRP No. 471 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.471 OF 2016 (SC) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O V. ZAILABUDDIN, NO.66, 4TH CROSS, P & T COLONY, VENKATESHAPURA, BANGALORE-560 045. 2. GULNAZ BEGUM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O R. HABIBULLA, NO.96, DHARAMARAJA KOIL STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. SHAHNAZ BEGUM AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O. ASLAM BASHA, NO.66, 4TH CROSS, P & T COLONY, VENKATESHAPURA, BANGALORE-560 045. 4. DILSHAD BEGUM AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, W/O. RIZWAN BASHA, HOLDER R. RIZWAN BASHA, NO.241, C-BLOCK, II CROSS, ENAM MOSQUE STREET RASHAD NAGAR, A/C POST, BANGALORE-560 045. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41646 CRP No. 471 of 2016 5. SULTANA BEGUM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, W/O SHAKEEL AHMED, NO.171, 6TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, PILLANNA GARDEN III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 044, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE ALSO GPA HOLDER, R. RIZWAN BASHA, S/O LATE S. K. ABDUL RASHEED, RESIDING AT NO.241, C-BLOCK, II CROSS, ENAM MOSQUE STREET, RASHAD NAGAR, A/C POST, BANGALORE-45. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI N.GURUMURTHY, ADVOCATE -ABSENT) AND: M/S. SHAYAMALA AND SHAYAMALA ENGINEER COMPANY BY ITS PROPRIETRIX, SMT. K. P. BHARATHAMATHA, W/O. OF PANDURANGA SHETTY, TWO ROOMS PORTION IN FIRST FLOOR NO.138, DAHRMARAJA KOIL STREET, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS P DHONDALE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF SMALL COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2016 PASSED IN SC NO.15110/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, BENGALURU (SCCH 19), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION, ARREARS OF RENT AND DAMAGES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41646 CRP No. 471 of 2016 ORAL ORDER None appears for the Revision Petitioners. 2. Matter was adjourned from 14.10.2025 to today, noting the absence of learned counsel for the revision petitioners, in the interest of justice. 3. Suit of the plaintiffs in the Trial Court with regard to termination of tenancy of the defendant came to be dismissed, after contest. 4. Revision Petition is of the year 2016. Ejectment suit itself is of the year 2012. There was a categorically finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that there was no proper termination of tenancy while answering point No.1. 5. It is always open for the land lord to terminate the tenancy properly and file one more suit. 6. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67