- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7311 WP No. 4693 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4693 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. S.SHAFI PASHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED SAB, RESIDING AT NO.35, 2ND CROSS, MADIWALA, BENGALURU-68 2. MR. SYED ZAMEER AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED SAAB, RESIDING AT NO.13, 2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN, BEHIND ANJANEYA TEMPLE, MADIWALA, BENGALURU-68 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARUN P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. SHAMALA. A.C. AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY T, RESIDING AT NO.567, 19TH CROSS, 23RD MAIN, SECTOR NO.2, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-102 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R. MADHUSUDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7311 WP No. 4693 of 2021 IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.08.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4725/2014 BY THE 25TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH NO.23, BENGALURU CITY AS PER ANNEXURE- A AND ALLOW THE W.P. THEREBY DISMISSING IA NO.4 OF THE RESPONDENTS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The defendants in O.S.No.4725/2014 pending on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') are before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 21.08.2019 by which, an application (I.A.No.4A) filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC') to direct the defendants to pay arrears of rent of Rs.2,98,000/- was allowed. 2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioners herein were the defendants, while respondent was the legal representative of the plaintiff before the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7311 WP No. 4693 of 2021 3. A suit in O.S.No.4725/2014 was filed for ejectment of the defendants from the suit schedule premises and for recovery of arrears of rent from February, 2014 at the rate of Rs.64,000/- per month till the date of termination of tenancy and for damages at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy till handing over actual possession. The plaintiff claimed that the suit schedule premises belonged to his father and that he had rented it out to the defendant No.1 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/- for shop No.1 and Rs.1,000/- for shop No.6. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant No.2, who is the brother of defendant No.1, was running a business in the suit schedule premises. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were not regular in payment of rent and that by February, 2014, the defendant had fallen in arrears of a sum of Rs.64,000/-. The plaintiff therefore, caused a notice terminating the tenancy and called upon the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Since the defendants failed to quit and deliver the possession of the suit schedule premises, the plaintiff filed the instant suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7311 WP No. 4693 of 2021 4. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1 who claimed that he was a tenant under Mr. Thippa Reddy on a monthly rent. He also contended that the plaintiff was collecting rent from him. He also contended that he was unwell and therefore, his brother namely, defendant No.2 was taking care of the business in shop No.1. However, he claimed that he was in no way responsible or concerned with shop No.6 as contended in the plaint. He contended that he had surrendered shop No.6 to the father of the plaintiff long back. He also denied that he was in arrears of rent as contended by the plaintiff. 5. During the course of the trial, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of CPC to direct the defendants to pay arrears of rent of Rs.2,98,000/-. 6. This application was contested by the defendant No.1, who denied that he was in arrears of rent from 05.02.2014 as alleged by the plaintiff. 7. The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order, allowed the said application on the ground that the defendant No.1 had not produced any documents to show that he had - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7311 WP No. 4693 of 2021 paid the rent upto 05.02.2014. It also perused the documents produced by the defendants and held that the defendants did not produce any documents to show that they had paid up-to- date rent. Consequently, it directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.2,98,000/- to the plaintiff within a month from the date of the order. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants are before this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff had claimed arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.64,000/- per month from February, 2014 and onwards and therefore, he contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,800/- per month. He further contends that the defendant No.1 had specifically contended that he had surrendered possession of shop No.6 and that he was not in arrears of rent as contended by the plaintiff. He therefore, contends that the Trial Court must have postponed the adjudication of the application till the evidence in the suit was concluded. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7311 WP No. 4693 of 2021 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand contended that the tenancy is not in dispute. He contends that though the defendant No.1 denied that he had fallen in arrears of rent, he did not produce any documents to establish that he had paid rent regularly from the date of inception of tenancy. He contends that notice dated 28.04.2014 was issued stating that the defendants had fallen in arrears of rent of Rs.64,000/-. He therefore, contends that the plaintiff have produced enough material to establish that the defendants had failed to pay arrears of rent. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants as well as the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 12. The defendant No.1 specifically admitted in his written statement that the father of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule premises and that he had taken the suit premises on rent from the father of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding jural relationship of tenant and landlord between the defendant No.1 and the father of the plaintiff. Now that the father of the plaintiff has expired, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7311 WP No. 4693 of 2021 plaintiff has filed the instant suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit schedule premises and for recovery of arrears of rent. Though the defendant No.1 claimed that he had surrendered shop No.6 to the father of the plaintiff, there is no material produced before the Trial Court to establish it. This therefore, meant that the defendant No.1 had not only taken shop No.1 on rent but also shop No.6. The plaintiff contended in the plaint that the defendant No.1 had taken above two shops on monthly rent of Rs.2,800/-. The defendant No.1 though denied this, did not mention the exact rate of rent that he had agreed to pay to the father of the plaintiff. In the absence of any material, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants were inducted into the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs.2,800/- appears to be correct. This apart, the plaintiff had caused a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendants, wherein it was informed that the defendants had fallen in arrears of rent of Rs.64,000/- during February, 2014. The defendants did not specifically deny the said contention. Therefore, the fact that the defendants had fallen in arrears of rent from February, 2014, merits acceptance. The Trial Court has carefully considered these facts and has rightly held that - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7311 WP No. 4693 of 2021 the defendants are bound to pay arrears of rent during the pendency of the suit. There is no error committed by the Trial Court warranting interference. 13. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 14. Any amount in deposit before the Trial Court shall be released to the legal representative/s of the plaintiff. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55