- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11714 WP No. 4014 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4014 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI L R PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE L.R.RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/A NO.620 2D BLOCK KALYA NAGAR HRBR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560043 REP BY ITS SPA HOLDER, L.P. ARVIND S/O L R PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS HAVING SHOP AT NO.22E JEWELLERS STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M D., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SARAVANA ESWAR P KUMAR S/O LATE T.N PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A FLAT NO.301 1279, 14TH CROSS INDIRANAGAR II STAGE BENGALURU -560038. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.V B SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11714 WP No. 4014 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE E DATED 10.12.2024 PASSED ON IA UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 5 CPC AND AT ANNEXURE H DATED 18.01.2025 PASSED ON IA UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IN COMM. O.S.NO.955/2023 AND ISSUED BY THE HON’BLE LXXXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-86) AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the LXXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on IA.No.13 filed under Section 114 of CPC in Com.O.S.No.955/20123 whereby the Trial Court has rejected the said application and confirmed the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Trial Court rejecting IA No.12 filed by the defendant under Order XIV Rule 5 r/w. Section 151 of CPC. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent. On service of summons, defendant appeared through counsel and filed the written statement denying that he is - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11714 WP No. 4014 of 2025 the owner of the suit schedule property. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed two issues as follows: “(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant became defaulter in payment of agreed rents as per lease agreement dated 20.11.2012 and thereby due of Rs.16,51,600/- towards arrears of rent to the plaintiff? (2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is entitled to recover vacant possession of suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ commercial premises from defendant?” 3. On the basis of the issues, parties have adduced the evidence. After conclusion of the evidence, I.A.No.12 came to be filed by the defendant seeking for framing of the following additional issues: “(1) Whether the plaintiff proves to this Hon’ble Court that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that to this Hon’ble Court, that he is empowered to file the above suit on behalf of Sri Nagareshwara Sri Kanayaka Parameshwari Temple? - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11714 WP No. 4014 of 2025 (3) Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to institute the suit?” 4. The Trial Court by order dated 10.12.2024 rejected I.A.No.12. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant filed I.A.No.13 under Section 114 of CPC seeking review of the order dated 10.12.2024. The trial court, by order dated 18.01.2025 rejected I.A.No.13. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contended that the premises in dispute belongs to Kanyaka Parameshwari Temple. The respondent/plaintiff is not the owner of the premises, he has no right to seek for eviction of the petitioner/defendant from the suit schedule property. Therefore, he seeks for framing of additional issues. But the trial court erred in dismissing the applications. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff contended that it is a suit for eviction. The plaintiff has to prove the jural relationship of landlord - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11714 WP No. 4014 of 2025 and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant for terminating the tenacy. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 8. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment directing the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule commercial premises in occupation of the defendant and also seeking a direction to pay arrears of rent. 9. The petitioner-defendant has filed a memo before this Court enclosing documents to show that the suit schedule premises does not belong to the plaintiff, but it belongs to the temple. The respondent-plaintiff also produced documents to show that the suit schedule premises belongs to the plaintiff. 10. Be that as it may. The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for eviction and to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises. Therefore, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11714 WP No. 4014 of 2025 there exists jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. 11. In a suit for eviction, the plaintiff has to establish the landlord and tenant relationship. 12. In the case on hand, issue No.2 framed by the trial court covers the above point. There is no need to frame any additional issue in respect of plaintiff to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, it is clear that in a suit for ejectment, the trial court can pass a decree, only if the plaintiff proves the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. There is no error or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10