- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4821 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: DROLIA AND KATARUKA REALTY LLP HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1 SARAT BOSE ROAD AMARDEEP BUILDING KOLKATA-700 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MRS. RITU DROLIA …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. PRADEEP ANNAIYAPPA S/O LATE V. ANNAIYAPPA MAJOR NO.262, 5TH CROSS 4TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034 2. MRS. PRAFULLA VA D/O LATE V. ANNAIYAPPA MAJOR NO.262, 5TH CROSS 4TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034 3. MR. ZIAULLA SHERIFF S/O MR. H. SHERIFF AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.85 Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 SHERIFF HOUSE, RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU-560 025 4. MR. M.M. BHATIA S/O MR. MOTUMAL AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS NO.4406/7/8, HIGH POINT 4 45, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 RESPONDENT NO.4 DELETED VIDE ORDER DT.30.06.2025 5. HIVEMINDS INNOVATIVE MARKET SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, SB TOWERS, NO.88 MG ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE JYOTHIRMAYEE JT 6. INDIAN CITY PROPERTIES LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ICP ATRIA GREEN, 163 SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE ROAD KALIGHAT, KOLKATA WEST BENGAL, INDIA-700 026 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.07.2025 NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 & R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A.N.7 IN OS.NO. 3173/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-02), REJECTING THE I.A.NO.7 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "CPC") filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.3173/2022 calling into question the correctness and legality of the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru(CCH-02), whereby the appellant's application (I.A.No.7) for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was rejected. 2. On going through records of this case, the dispute in respect of an immovable property situated at No. 88, M.G. Road, Bengaluru, popularly known as "SB Towers". The appellant claim rights over a portion of the third floor of the said property, measuring 6,246 square - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 feet (hereinafter referred to as the "suit schedule property"). The foundation of the appellant claim lies in a sub-lease deed dated 25.11.1981 executed in favour of its predecessor in interest by defendant Nos. 3 and 4, who were themselves lessees under a head lease dated 12.11.1979 executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. 3. It is the case of the appellant that, the head- lease granted in favour of defendant No. 3 and 4 was for a period of 42 years, commencing from 12.11.1979 and ending on 11.11.2021. The said lease included liberty for the lessees to construct a commercial building and to sub-let any portion thereof. Pursuant thereto, "S.B. Towers" was constructed and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 subleased the suitable property to the predecessor of the appellant. 4. The appellant asserts that, substantial sums were invested in developing the leased premises and that over the decades, it sub-let the property to various - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 tenants including Government and Private Sector entities. It contends that, it enjoyed uninterrupted possession and that upon expiry of the head-lease, it became entitled to be recognized and attorn as a direct tenant of the original lessors (defendant Nos. 1 and 2), by virtue of clauses 19 and 20 of the head-lease and sub-lease. 5. The records of this appeal indicates that, upon expiry of the lease on 11.11.2021, the appellant addressed letters to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 requesting of continuing tenancy and enclosed demand drafts towards rent. These letters however, elicited no positive response from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. On the contrary, the respondents rejected the claim of the appellant, refused to accept rent and expressed their intent to alienate the property. 6. In the meanwhile, a public notice came to be issued on 03.06.2024 indicating that, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 intended to sell the property. Thereafter, on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 26.07.2024, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 executed registered Sale Deed in favour of defendant No. 6, of the entire premises including the suit schedule property, for a valuable consideration of Rs.125 Crores. Defendant No. 6 - Indian City Properties Limited, is a third party purchaser, who is now carrying out demolition and redevelopment of the structure. 7. It is in this background that, the appellant filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against all the defendants from interfering with its possession and also filed interim application to restrain the demolition of the property by defendant No.6. I.A.No.7 was filed specifically to restrain demolition, and it was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 24.06.2005, which is impugned in this appeal. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is presented by the appellant now. 8. The records of this appeal further reveal that, the learned trial Court, after referring to the earlier - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 rejection of I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 on similar grounds, has held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property and had no subsisting leasehold rights following the expiry of the head-lease. The Court noted that, defendant No. 6 had obtained the title under registered Sale Deed and had initiated lawful demolition pursuant to requisite permissions. 9. Sri. Akshay Kumar Jain.V., learned counsel for the appellant with all vehemence submits that, as the appellant is a sub-lessee, his possession has to be protected. There is no permission being granted by the concerned authorities for demolition of the building. Based upon the letter of the defendants, communication is sent by the BBMP for demolition of the building within 7 days. Though the order of demolition was passed long back, the demolition work is undertaken recently. To deprive the rights of this appellant/sub-lessee, defendant No. 6 is ventured to demolish the building so as to dispossess him. It is further submitted that, it is the tactic - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 played by the defendants through defendant No. 6 so as to deprive the rights of the appellant being a sub-lessee. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant took this Court to various documents produced by both the sides and also the observations of the trial Court rejecting his application. He prays to allow the appeal in view of the grounds made out in the appeal memo. 10. As against this submission, Sri. Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 with all vehemence submits that, when the head-lease is expired, automatically the sub-lease also expires. There is no privity of contract between defendant No. 6 and the so called plaintiff. He is a purchaser of the property and defendant No. 6 has undertaken demolition of the entire premises, in which the appellant was a tenant. Entire structure was in dilapidated condition. Therefore, on the application filed by the concerned and on inspection of the suit premises, the BBMP has issued a communication to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 demolish the building as it is not fit for human habitation. He would further submit that, in view of the grounds urged in the objections of the respondent before the trial Court, so also, the documents so produced in this appeal as well as before the Trial Court do demonstrate that, the appellant/plaintiff has no substantial right in the schedule property. Therefore, rightly the trial Court has rejected the interim application of the plaintiff. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 relied upon the observations of the trial Court in rejecting the application. 11. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, on perusal of the entire material, the principal question for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the appellant, who was a sub- lessee under a lease that expired by efflux of time, has a prima facie right to injunction and whether the balance of convenience lies in its favour?” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 12. Under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lease of an immovable property is determined by efflux of time limited thereby. In the present case, the head-lease expressly expired on 11.11.2021. The sub-lease, being co-extensive with the head-lease, also came to an end on the said date. No fresh lease or renewal is shown to have been executed thereafter. 13. The appellant/plaintiff relies upon clause 19 and 20 of the head-lease. These clauses 19 and 20 of the head-lease clearly show that, as per clause 20 of the sub- lease are relied upon by the appellant to contend that, the lessees had the right to direct attornment and such attornment was binding on the lessors. However, lease hold law recognizes that attornment is not automatic. It must be either contractually mandated with clear enforceability or voluntarily accepted by the landlord. In the present case, the lessors declined such attornment and rejected the payment of rent though it was sent by - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 the appellant through post. There was no attornment at all. 14. The appellant has not produced any documents, evidence of renewal, extension or fresh tenancy post 2021. Neither issuance of letters and unilateral offer to pay rent cannot amount to a binding lease, nor can possession without title constitute a juridical possession deserving of a protection unless it is backed by some lawful right. 15. A sub-lessee's right cannot exceed that of the original lessee. Once the head-lease terminates, the sub- lease automatically falls with it. This principle is central to the hierarchy of leasehold rights. The claim that the appellant is entitled to injunction solely because it was once in a possession is therefore not sustainable. So far as lease and sub-lease is concerned, it is well settled that, "there is neither privity of estates, nor privity of contracts between the head-lessor and the sub-lessee and that - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 therefore the sub-lessee will not be liable for rent nor any covenants in respect of the lease granted by the head- lessor to the chief tenant. But ordinarily speaking the chief tenant stands in the same relationship to the sub- tenant as his own landlord stands towards him. For example, a subtenant will be stopped from denying the title of his landlord, namely, the chief tenant to grant of a sub tenancy, just in the same way as a chief tenant will be precluded from denying the title of the head-lessor at the time of grant of a lease. The head-lessor's rights will not be affected by the sub-lease; Subtenant's rights will therefore stand or fall with the right of the main tenant. For example, if the main, lease comes to an end and either by efflux of time or by forfeiture, then the sub-lessee will lose his right to possession as well. But the case will perhaps be different where the head-lessee voluntarily surrenders in favour of his landlord in derogation of the rights granted by him to the sub-lessee." - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 16. It is not the case made out by the appellant in this case. But so long as the main lease is subsisting, the sub tenant will have all rights secured to him under his contract. For example, "if a main tenant obtains a lease from the head lessor for a term of 10 years, and he lets into possession of the land a cultivating tenant as a sub- lessee for a period of 1 year, such sub-lessee would be a continuing tenant within the meaning of the Act and be entitled to all the privileges, for the duration of his lessor title. If such a title terminates on the expiry of the term, the sub-lessee right to remain in possession of the land notwithstanding the fact that it had been given to him under the statue, will have automatically come to an end as he cannot have the higher right than what his own lessor had". 17. Turning to the present fact of this case, the appellant's contention is that, the demolition would cause irreparable harm and defeat the suit is unpersuasive. The demolition is being undertaken by the current lawful owner - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 after securing necessary permissions. Though the appellant disputes the very permissions produced by the respondent/land lord, but they are produced before this Court issued by the Competent Authority. Those permissions are not challenged by any of the parties. As per the permission so granted by the BBMP, the building has been declared structurally unsafe. If any residual rights are ultimately found in favour of the appellant, such rights can be compensated in accordance with law. 18. There is no suit for a specific performance or declaration of adherence rights filed by the appellant before any forum. No such pleading is found in the plaint. The relief sought is purely prohibitory in nature, without any foundation of an existing legal right. The trial Court has applied the correct legal principles. The finding that, the appellant is not in possession and has no subsequent right is supported by the documents. There is no manifest error, perversity or miscarriage of justice. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 19. It is settled law that, interim injunctions are equitable reliefs, granted only when the applicant shows a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour, likelihood of irreparable injury and that the balance of convenience also lies in his favour. The appellant fails on all three counts. Appellants legal right is extinguished, the injury is not irreparable and the balance favours the owner under lawful development. 20. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not invade the transfers made during pendency of litigation. It merely binds the transferee to the outcome. Defendant No. 6 as a purchaser pendente lite, he is bound by the decree in the suit but is not precluded from asserting possession or undertaking development in the absence of injunction. 21. On going through the impugned order, the trial Court has exercised its discretion reasonably and within - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 the confines of the law. There is no reason to interfere with such a discretion order passed to the trial Court. 22. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in case after completion of the construction by the defendant No. 6, if some provision is made for his occupation as a tenant, it would also meet the ends of justice. When it is posed to the counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no such possibility of leasing any property to the present appellant and defendant No. 6 is not thought of the same. Ultimately it is for defendant No. 6 to consider the request if at all it is made by the appellant. It is left to the discretion and option of defendant No. 6. 23. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25511 MFA No. 4821 of 2025 24. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru(CCH-02) in O.S.No. 3173/2022 on I.A.No.7 is hereby confirmed. (iii) Costs made easy. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6