- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 4 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. P.BALAJI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE PAPANNA RESIDING AT NO.235, 1ST CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU -560 095 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.D.L.JAGADEESH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MS.RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. R.BHARATHI MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O MURALIDHAR RESIDING AT NO.57, GROUND FLOOR, 1ST B MAIN, JAKKASANDRA-EXTENSION, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK BENGALURU-560 034 2. SMT.LAKSHMI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O LATE P.SRINVAS RESIDING AT NO.234, 1ST CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, WARD NO.76, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.NAGARAJ S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.BHARGAVA D. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS HRRP FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.02.2025 PASSED ON IA Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 NO.VIII IN EX. NO.683/2022 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, REJECTING THE IA NO.VIII FILED UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 97 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2014 PASSED IN H.R.C.No.207/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(r) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed in Ex.P.No.683/2022 dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes (SCCH-1) Bangalore, the objector is before this Court. 2. The respondent No.1 herein has filed HRC No.207/2011 against the respondent No.2 and that came to be decreed on 20.08.2014, against that the respondent No.2 herein had preferred HRRP.No.87/2014 on 09.10.2014 that came to be dismissed 13.12.2021. Thereafter the Ex.P.No.683/2022 was filed by the respondent No.1 herein. Then she filed her objections to the execution petition on 14.09.2022. Thereafter the petitioner before this court had filed I.A.No.VIII under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC in Ex.P.No.683/2022. It is the specific case of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 petitioner before this court, is that father of the respondent No.1 had executed a irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of the father of the petitioner on 25.04.1980, then the father died on 25.11.1995. They are in the possession of the property and they have made constructions. On 11.04.2012, he has filed OS.No. 2254/2012 against the respondent No.1 herein and her father and also against the respondent No.2 and said suit is pending adjudication. Before the executing court he has filed as many as 16 documents; those are copy of the lease cum sale agreement dated 07.07.1979, Copy of the sale agreement dated 01.08.2007, copy of the irrevocable GPA dated 25.04.1980, copy of the tax paid receipts (2 Nos), copy of the death certificate of Papanna, copy of application for transfer of katha, copy of the Possession certificate, copy of the electricity bill paid receipts, the photographs, copy of the plaint in OS.No.2254/2012, copy of the written statement of defendant Nos.1 to 4 in OS.No.2254/2012, copy of the issues and Additional issues in O.S.No.2254/2012, copy of examination in chief of PW-1 in O.S.No.2254/2012, copy of the sale deed dated 10.07.2006 and the copy of the gift deed dated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 17.07.2006. Basing on these documents, it is a case of the objector-petitioner that he is the owner who is in occupation of the property and without impleading him a decree is obtained and the decree cannot be executed. 3. The trial court by order impugned has rejected the said application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. While rejecting the application, the court has observed that since 2012 the objector and his sister are conducting OS.No.2254/2012 for and on behalf of the judgment debtor and her children against one Sri Ramaiah on the basis of the alleged registered GPA dated 25.04.1980. The evidence on records shows that after conducting enquiry HRC.No.207/2011 came to be decreed, which has been confirmed by the order dated 13.12.2021 passed in HRRP No.87/2014. The court records a finding that the judgment debtor-Lakshmi Srinivas, applicant of IA No.II- Uday Kumar and the present applicant i.e., applicant in I.A No.VIII are asserting possession over the disputed premises in different capacities. Hence it is clear that Balaji & company in different methods making several attempts to avoid decree holder to take possession of the disputed premises in terms of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 the order and decree passed in HRC No.207/2011 confirmed through order passed by the High Court in HRRP No.87/2014. The court also observes that the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A No.VIII by the objector is not supported by admissible and believable evidence. In view of the pendency of OS No.2254/2012 before the competent authority at this stage, it is neither permissible not possible to express any opinion about validity, consequences of the GPA dated 25.04.1980 alleged to have been executed by Ramaiah. Sri Balaji and the legal representative of Papanna are having absolute liberty to get suitable relief in OS.No.2254/2012 and the court came to the conclusion that the submissions made on behalf of the objector is neither believable nor acceptable nor sustainable for grant of relief as sought in the application in IA No. VIII and accordingly rejected the application and further directed to issue possession warrant, directing and authorizing the process branch to take possession of the property prescribed in the schedule of the decree passed in HRC.No. 207/2011 from judgment debtor and handover the same to the decree holder in accordance with law, aggrieved thereby, the objector is before this Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the objector submits that the scope of a enquiry under order 21 rule 97 of CPC is clear and any order that is passed by the court in an application under order 21 rule 97 of CPC is treated as a decree and against that a regular appeal lies against the same. It is submitted that when an application is filed, it is the duty of the court to conduct the enquiry and pass an appropriate order. The objector has filed as many has 17 documents, including the copy of the plaint and court had failed to do any enquiry as contemplated under order 21 rule 97 of CPC, as he is setting up an independent title and the court ought to have considered all the documents and ought to have given the reasoned order with regard to the right of the objector. He has drawn the attention of the court to the order passed by the court below and submits that no such enquiry is conducted by the court as contemplated under order 21 rule 97 of CPC. It is submitted that if the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court and a direction may be given to the trial Court to pass orders in a timebound manner and the petitioner will cooperate with the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 same and it would be in the interest of all the parties. With regard to the scope of enquiry under order 21 rule 97 of CPC, he had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.Seshadri Vs. K.R.Natarajan and another1, N.S.S. Narayana Sarma and others Vs. Goldstone Exports(P) Ltd. And others2, Anwarbi Vs. Pramod D.A. Joshi and others3, Noorduddin Vs. dr. K.L. Anand4, Sri. Venkatarayappa Vs. Sri. G. Muniyappa and others5, Vimla Devi Vs. Pushpa Devi and anothers6, Tanzeem-E-Sufia Vs. Bibi Haliman and others7 and also the division judgment of this court i.e., MFA No.22850/2013 dated 14.07.2020 between Meenaxi & others Vs. Pandurang Bhimrao Laxmeshwar since dead by LRs with regard to the Section 202 of the Contract Act. Relying on all these judgments, learned senior counsel submits that the executing court had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it and the order impugned needs to be set aside. 1 2003 (10) SCC 449 2 2002 (1) SCC 662 3 (2000) 10 SCC 405 4 1995 (1) SCC 242 5 ILR 2008 KAR 3553 6 2017 SCC online Del 8694 7 (2002) 7 SCC 50 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, submits that they have filed the HRC .No.207/2011 against one Lakshmi Srinivas, who is the respondent No.2 herein, and who is none other than the sister-in-law of the petitioner herein on 11.08.2011. The father of the objector who is the father-in-law of Smt Lakshmi Srinivas has executed a lease deed in favour of her and basing on that she is residing in the said property and for her eviction they have filed HRC No.207/2011. After the said suit is filed by them, on 11.04.2012 OS.No. 2254/2012 is filed by the present objector against the respondent No.1 and 2 and the father of respondent No.1- Y.Ramaiah. On 15.11.2012 a written statement was filed by the respondent No.1 herein and also the respondent No.2. In the written statement of the respondent No.1, it is stated that the plaintiff who is the objector and the plaintiff in the said suit has nothing to do with the suit schedule property and the property is leased out to the respondent No.2 herein and in respect of this already HRC.No.207/2011 is filed and the respondent No.2 herein who is the sister-in-law has denied the title of the plaintiff i.e., objector herein and also stated that she is in possession of the property. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 6. Learned counsel submits that when the objector is aware of the pending proceedings, right from the year 2011 till 2022 he kept quite. Then when the execution proceedings are initiated, one Uday Kumar has filed an application under order 21 rule 97 of CPC. According to said Uday Kumar, he is a tenant of Lakshmi Srinivas that came to be dismissed on 21.08.2024. Thereafter the objector has filed the present I.A under order 21 rule 97 of CPC on 09.10.2024. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter another IA came to be filed by one Shaikh Zaheer Abbas stating that he is the tenant of the present objector and the said petition is pending adjudication. It is submitted that the HRC is filed in the year 2011, though in 2022, the proceedings have attained finality till now in collusion with the judgment debtor, they are coming up with one petition after the other. He submits that to the judgment debtor as well to the petitioner-objector, their source of title is the GPA that is executed by Papanna and basing on that GPA he has executed a lease agreement in favour of his daughter-in-law i.e., respondent No.2. He submits that the court had considered the claim, whether it is an independent claim or not, whether it falls within the scope of order 21 rule 97 of CPC and having come to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 the conclusion that prima facie that it requires no enquiry, the court had rightly rejected the application and there are no grounds to interfere with well considered order passed with the trial court. 7. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-objector and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, this court has perused the material available on record. The HRC proceedings that are initiated by the respondent No.1 herein have attained finality on 13.12.2021 when HRRP.No.87/ 2014 filed by the respondent No.2 herein was dismissed, thereafter the execution proceedings are initiated. The judgment debtor is none other than the sister-in-law of the objector who is the petitioner herein. Now he is relying upon GPA that is executed by the father of the respondent No.1 in favour of the father of the objector. Even the judgment debtor is also relying on the lease deed that is executed by her father- in-law in her favour, basing on the GPA that is executed by the father of respondent No.1 in favour of her father-in-law. Now this court has perused all the documents that are filed along with an application under order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. Those documents are GPA and all other documents pertaining to the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 suit OS.No.2254/2012. The suit is filed in the year 2012, where he is seeking a declaration and specific performance and the said suit is pending from 2012. He is seeking declaration and he is asserting his title basing on the GPA, that will be decided by a competent court in a comprehensive suit filed for declaration. Now in these execution proceedings the petitions that are filed by the objector that is by Uday Kumar, by the present petitioner, by another Sheikh Zaheer Abbas all these clearly shows that with one way or the other to interfere with the process of execution, these petitions are filed one after the other. The rights of this objector can only be decided by the competent court in OS.No.2254/2012, but not by the executing court in these proceedings. It is not even the case that the objector is not aware of the pending proceedings that are initiated in the year 2012 in written statement that is in OS.No.2254/2012 everything is stated. The trial court considering all these aspects had rightly observed that it is not for the court to make any observation with regard to the GPA that is executed in favour of the objector’s father and it has to be decided by the competent court in the pending suit between - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 the parties. The court had rightly rejected the application of the objector. 8. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that all the documents that are filed by the objector were not considered by the court. This court has already perused the documents that are placed before the court, the trial court has rightly considered all these aspects and had rightly come to a conclusion. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down and the scope of enquiry under order 21 rule 97 of CPC. Under the guise of an application under order 21 rule 97 of CPC, the court need not conduct an elaborate enquiry and prime facie, the court has satisfied with regard to the nature of claim raised by the objector and rightly dismissed the application. This court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial court. 9. Accordingly, this court is passing the following order: ORDER i. The HRRP is dismissed. ii. The observations made by this court are only for the adjudicating of the dispute before this court and - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9640 HRRP No. 4 of 2025 they shall not be construed as an expression of this court either in this execution proceedings or in any other connected suit. iii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19