- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010255062025 NC: 2026:KHC:42949 RFA No. 966 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 966 OF 2025 (EJE) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SALUMARADA THIMMAKKA W/O. LATE BIKKALA CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 114 YEARS 2. SRI. B.N.UMESH S/O. SMT. SAALUMARADA THIMMAKKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.16 NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE SOAP FACTORY LAYOUT MANJUNATH NAGARA BAGALAGUNTE TUMKURU ROAD - 560 073. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHANABASAPPA S N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S RAVISHANKAR S/O SRI.H.SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. SMT.M.S.LATHA W/O SRI.S.RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010255062025 NC: 2026:KHC:42949 RFA No. 966 of 2025 BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 516 NETHRAVATHI ROAD CROSS DEVASANDRA NEW B.E.L.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 054. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH K A, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) (NOTICE NOT YET ORDERED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.6274/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants/defendants have filed the appeal calling in question the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2025 passed in O.S.No.6274/2022 by the Court of IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-5) (for short ‘Trial Court’), whereby the suit filed for ejectment is decreed in part. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010255062025 NC: 2026:KHC:42949 RFA No. 966 of 2025 3. It is undisputed fact that the appellants /defendants are tenants and respondents/plaintiffs are owners of the suit schedule property. 4. The suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is decreed directing the appellants/defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant physical possession of the property which is under challenge before this Court. 5. Admittedly, the respondents/plaintiffs are owners of the suit schedule property and the appellants/defendants are tenants. Therefore, the findings given by the Trial Court in decreeing the suit are not found to be perverse and illegal. Therefore, there is no need to make interference in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 6. However, learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants prays (9) months time to vacate the suit premises as they have to shift the proposed museum to another premises. Therefore, there is no merit found in the appeal filed by the appellants/defendants. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed for ejectment is confirmed. Therefore, the appeal is liable to the dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010255062025 NC: 2026:KHC:42949 RFA No. 966 of 2025 7. However, the appellant / defendants are granted (9) months time to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondents/plaintiffs from today. 8. The appellants/defendants shall file an undertaking affidavit before this Court, undertaking to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property within nine (9) months from today. The said undertaking affidavit shall be filed within four weeks from today. 9. Till then, the appellants/defendants shall pay monthly rent regularly as agreed with the respondents/plaintiffs. If any default in payment of rent amount as agreed, then the respondents/plaintiffs are at liberty to execute the decree. With the above reasons, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7