- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22125 WP No. 7718 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7718 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. DEEPAK KAMBIL S/O K.T.RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 3033 CASA PARADISO, SHOBA CITY OPPOSITE SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560 077. 2. SEENA DEEPAK W/O DEEPAK KAMBIL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 3033 CASA PARADISO, SHOBA CITY OPPOSITE SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560 077. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI AKANKSH ASHOK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAMEER AHMED S/O ABDUL WAHEED AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.A2 102 SHRIRAM WHITE HOUSE APARTMENTS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22125 WP No. 7718 of 2025 15TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032. 2. SUNIL MORE SHIVAJI RAO DIRECTOR OF JABM ONESOURCE PVT. LTD., OFFICE AT 2ND MAIN ROAD NILA INVESTMENT LAYOUT BETTADASANAPURA ELECTRONICITY PHASE - 1 BENGALURU – 560 100. 3. SHIVAKUMAR MANAGER OF JABM ONE SOURCE PVT. LTD., OFFICE AT 2ND MAIN ROAD NILA INVESTMENT LAYOUT BETTADASANAPURA ELECTRONICITY PHASE - 1 BENGALURU – 560 100. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WTH VIDE ORDER DATED 22.04.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 19.02.2025 IN O.S.NO.6896/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 67) REJECTING THE DEPOSIT OF OUTSTANDING RENTS BY THE R-1 ON I.A.NO. 1 AT ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22125 WP No. 7718 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are before the Court calling in question an order dated 19-02-2025 passed in O.S.No.6896 of 2023, by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH – 67), rejecting the application – I.A.No.1 under Section 151 of the CPC, filed by the petitioners - plaintiffs seeking deposit of outstanding rents by the 1st respondent. 2. Heard Sri Akanksh Ashok, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The 2nd petitioner enters into a service agreement with respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are Director and Manager of JABM OneSource Private Limited (‘the Company’ for short) to run and manage the affairs pertaining to her apartment. The said agreement is entered into on 30-09-2020. On 29-10-2020, in terms of service agreement they enter into an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22125 WP No. 7718 of 2025 inadequately stamped lease agreement with the 1st respondent at the time of letting out of the service apartment. Therefore, the service agreement is entered into between the 2nd petitioner and the company and lease agreement letting out the apartment between the company and respondent No.1. From the month of July, 2021, it appears that the company which had entered into the service agreement stops payment of monthly rent. The petitioners cause notice and letter on 01-04-2022. The petitioners again cause notice to the company terminating the agreement between them and the company, due to non-payment of rent. The 1st respondent then files a suit in O.S.No.2651 of 2022 against the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 - Company seeking permanent injunction restraining all the three from interfering with the possession of the 1st respondent. The trial Court grants temporary injunction in favour of the 1st respondent in the said suit. The temporary injunction is said to have been vacated on 28-03-2023. A miscellaneous first appeal is preferred before this Court by the 1st respondent and a coordinate bench of this Court refused to interfere with the order dated 28.03.2023 and no interim order is granted, in terms of the order dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22125 WP No. 7718 of 2025 22.08.2023. In the said suit – O.S.No.2651/2022, the petitioners file an application in I.A.No.XIII for return of original documents under Order XIII Rule 9 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC. The documents sought were the unregistered and insufficiently stamped lease agreement. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the said suit i.e., O.S.No.2651 of 2022. 4. The petitioners prefer a suit in O.S.No.6896 of 2023 for eviction and mesne profits against the respondents, in which an application – I.A.No.1 under Section 151 of the CPC is preferred seeking deposit of outstanding rents for the schedule premises from 01-11-2022 till 26-10-2023, the date on which, the said suit was filed. The application in I.A.No.1 is rejected by the concerned Court on 19-02-2025. In the suit preferred by respondent No.1 i.e., O.S.No.2651/2022, the concerned Court rejects I.A.No.13 and impounds the lease agreement of respondent No.1 as it was insufficiently stamped. The petitioners aggrieved by the said order passed by the concerned Court in declining to allow their application, seeking deposit of arrears of rent, are before this Court in the subject petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22125 WP No. 7718 of 2025 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the only reason the concerned Court has rendered to reject the application seeking deposit of rents is, the lease agreement between the two is unregistered and inadequately stamped. The learned counsel would submit that inadequately stamped or unregistered document can be relied on for collateral purposes. The collateral purpose in the case at hand is deposit of rents. Therefore, the concerned Court ought not to have rejected the application which is for limited purpose of deposit of rents. He would place on record a memo of calculation of arrears of rents to paid as on date. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that he has entered into the agreement with respondent Nos.2 and 3 - Company. Therefore, he is a sub-lessee from the hands of respondents 2 and 3 and there is a dispute with respondents 2 and 3 as they have allegedly defrauded the 1st respondent. He would, therefore, submit that the application filed by the plaintiffs is rightly rejected as it was inadequately stamped and unregistered. Based upon that, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have entered into lease agreement with the 1st respondent. On all - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22125 WP No. 7718 of 2025 these factors, he would submit that until respondent Nos.2 and 3 would settle his claim, he cannot be evicted from the premises. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue in the subject lis lies in a narrow compass as to whether the concerned Court could have rejected the application seeking a direction to the 1st respondent/1st defendant to deposit outstanding rent from 01-11-2022 till the date of filing of the suit. The concerned Court has on the following reasons rejected the application: “11. It is pertinent to note that no lease agreement is in existence between the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs have not produced prima facie material to show that there exists land and tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Under these circumstances, there is no scope to direct the defendant to pay the arrears of rent. The plaintiffs can claim arrears if any from M/s JABM OneSource Private Limited in pursuance to the service agreement entered between them. … … … - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22125 WP No. 7718 of 2025 14. In the cases relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiffs though the lease period was lapsed, there was relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties. In the case on hand the plaintiffs have not produced any piece of evidence to show that defendant is tenant under him. In fact, the documents produced by the plaintiffs indicate that service agreement was entered by the plaintiff No.2 with M/s JABM Onesource Private Limited. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Under these circumstances, the rulings on which reliance is placed by the counsel for plaintiff is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 15. On perusal of the material placed before the Court, there is nothing on record to show that there exists the relationship of land and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants. There are also no materials to show that defendant agreed to pay monthly rent to the plaintiffs. In the absence of the same there is no scope to direct the defendant to deposit the amount as sought by the plaintiffs. Therefore, point no.1 is answered in the negative.” (Emphasis added) The concerned Court holds that there is no lease agreement in existence between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs have not produced any material to show that there exists landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The lease period has lapsed and the lease agreement is entered into between plaintiff No.2 and M/s JABM Onesource Private Limited - Company. There is no other - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22125 WP No. 7718 of 2025 document to show that the plaintiffs had executed any agreement for payment of rent. It is in these circumstances the lease agreement between petitioner No.2 - plaintiff No.2 and the Company was sought to be produced as on the strength of the lease agreement so made, the 1st respondent was given possession of the property on lease. Therefore, it is akin to a tripartite agreement. 9. The plaintiffs enter into lease agreement (service agreement) with the Company. The 1st respondent is a sub- lessee from the hands of a lessee - respondents 2 and 3. But, the property of the petitioners is being held in possession by the 1st respondent. The plea of the 1st respondent is that, he is not bound to pay any amount to plaintiff No.2 as he is in agreement with respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the light of the issue being deposit of rent from 01.11.2022 till the date of filing of the suit, the concerned Court ought to have protected the interest of the petitioners, whose property is being admittedly used by the 1st respondent. If the 1st respondent has dispute with respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is altogether a different cause of action or a circumstance. Therefore, the application ought to have been allowed on this score. The - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22125 WP No. 7718 of 2025 property of the petitioners which is being used by the 1st respondent cannot be used without at the outset paying rent. 10. The memo of calculation is placed before the Court by the petitioners. It reads as follows: “MEMO OF CALCULATION The Petitioners most respectfully craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to produce the Memo of Calculation herein below: Since the Respondent No. 1 continues to occupy the Schedule Property even after his Lease Agreement with M/s JABM One Source Pvt. Ltd (Respondent No. 2 and 3) had expired on 30.10.2022, he is liable to pay rent from 01.11.2022 until filing of the Suit in O.S. No. 6896/2023 i.e., until 23.10.2023 as sought for under the I.A. No. 1 in O.S. No. 6896/2023.” - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22125 WP No. 7718 of 2025 In terms of the memo of calculation, the 1st respondent shall deposit the rent before the concerned Court. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 19-02-2025 on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.6896 of 2023 passed by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, stands quashed. (iii) I.A.No.I in O.S.No.6896 of 2023 stands allowed. (iv) The 1st respondent shall deposit rent before the Court as per the memo of calculation filed by the petitioners. (v) The rent so deposited shall not be permitted to be withdrawn by the plaintiffs except in a manner known to law, which shall however remain subject to the outcome of pending suits. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Nvj/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT:SS