- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 8794 OF 2025 (HRC) BETWEEN: 1. A V NAGARAJ S/O LATE A. VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SMT AV GUNASAGARI, D/O LATE A VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 3. SMT AV ANUSUYA DEVI, D/O LATE A VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 4. SMT AV GAYATHRI DEVI, D/O LATE A VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 5. SRI AV GANESH BABU, D/O LATE A VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 6. SMT AV SAVITHRI DEVI, D/O LATE A VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 7. SMT AV SHARADA DEVI, D/O LATE A VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025 8. SRI AV SOMASHEKAR, S/O LATE A VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 695/1-B, SIDDAPPA VATTARA, BEHIND PADMA TALKIES, B.B. GARDEN ROAD, FORT MOHALLA, MYSURU PIN - 570 004 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE) AND: M S JEEVITHESH S/O LATE MS SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 1036/6, SARVAJANIKA HOSTEL MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU - 570 029 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.M. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 20.01.2025 IN HRC NO.12/2013 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSURU (PRODUCED VIDE ANX-A) THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE P-8 /R-1 (H) SEEKING TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN HRC NO. 12/2013 TILL DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN OS NO. 654/2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Heard Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri C.M. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Writ Petition is filed challenging order dated 20.01.2025 passed by VI Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Mysore, in H.R.C. no.12/2013 rejecting I.A. no.XXXI filed therein. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that respondent had filed petition under Section 27(e), (h) and (i) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, ‘Act’) against petitioners herein to evict them from schedule property etc. Said petition was being contested by petitioners. During pendency of proceedings, petitioners found out that father of respondent had executed an agreement to sale dated 06.06.1986 in favour of A.Veerappa i.e., father of petitioners with regard to suit property in question for a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025 sale consideration of Rs.65,000/-. The agreement stated that father of respondent had received advance consideration of Rs.41,000/- and balance amount of Rs.24,000/- was to be paid by petitioners as rent till year 2005. The agreement further stated that in pursuance of sale, petitioners were put in possession of suit property. 4. Thereafter on 27.05.2019, petitioners got issued a legal notice to respondent calling upon him to come forward and perform his part of contract. On failure to comply, O.S.no.654/2019 was filed before IX Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, for relief of specific performance. Said suit was being contested by respondent by filing written statement. It was submitted that in view of pendency of suit, wherein relationship of petitioners and respondent as agreement holder and seller was being adjudicated, proceedings in H.R.C. no.12/2013 could not be continued as petitioners in said petition had denied relationship of landlord and tenant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025 5. In view of above, an application as per Annexure-F was filed for stay of proceedings in HRC. 6. Said application was opposed by respondent by filing objections as per Annexure-G. But, under impugned order at Annexure-A, said application was rejected. Aggrieved, present Writ Petition was filed. 7. It was submitted impugned order was contrary to law, passed without proper appreciation of facts and circumstances of case wherein contradictory findings in two petitions between same parties with regard to same property were likely to be passed. Therefore, prayed for allowing Writ Petition. 8. On other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted, on an earlier occasion when petitioners herein had filed application for amendment in HRC proceedings and same was rejected, they had approached this Court in W.P. no.10306/2023. In said petition, Court had held: - - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025 “9. The original respondent in the written statement admitted the relationship. Perusal of the alleged agreement of sale, indicated that the husband of the original respondent admitted the relationship, and continued as a tenant, and was not put in possession of suit property under agreement of sale. The outcome of the suit for specific performance will not have any bearing on the petition filed by the respondent for evicting the petitioners, since the question of tenancy cannot be adjudicated in the suit for specific performance. Accordingly, the Trial Court and the Revisional Court have rightly passed the impugned orders. I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders.” 9. In view of above observation present Writ Petition would be untenable and sought for dismissal. 10. It was also submitted that since proceedings under Rent Act would not amount to a suit, provisions of Section 10 of CPC would not be attracted and on said grounds sought for rejection of petition. 11. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused Writ Petition. 12. From above, petitioners’ grievance against order rejecting application filed under Section 10 of CPC in HRC proceedings was that they were not inducted as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025 tenants, but were put in possession in pursuance of an agreement of sale, as specific performance of which they had sought in O.S.no.654 of 2019. Since relationship of petitioners and respondent as holder of agreement of sale and seller would be decided comprehensively in suit, proceedings in Rent Petition could not be pursued as there was likelihood of contrary findings. 13. A perusal of order passed in W.P. no.10306/2023 reveals though it was on an application for amendment, this Court after taking note of facts and circumstances, held proceedings before Trial Court in suit and Rent Court would be different and question of tenancy cannot be adjudicated in suit for specific performance. This court also observed that original respondent in rent proceedings had admitted relationship of landlord and tenant in the written statement. Such being case, present petition would not be tenable, rejection by trial Court for application of stay would be justified as requirements of Section 10 of CPC would not be met. Needless to observe - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025 that rent proceedings and civil suit being filed for adjudication of different rights of parties in different contexts, final decision in rent petition would not come in way of petitioner pursuing suit. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT-SG