- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31738 WP No. 22421 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22421 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: JASTI KISHORE S/O NAGESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT EAST GANGAVARAM TALLUR, PRAKASAM, ANDRA PRADESH - 523 264 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE) AND: HARILAL MOHANLAL PIPALIYA ALSO KNOWN AS HARILAL MOHANLAL MISTRI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT SRI G KRUPA, 14TH MAIN, 19TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102 …RESPONDENT/CAVEATOR (BY SRI. S. GURU PRASANNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-83) AT COMMERCIAL COURT BANGALORE IN COM. OS NO. 194/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31738 WP No. 22421 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court in Commercial O.S.No.194/2023, which directs deposit of admitted rent from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 06.02.2023 till 29.02.2024, which would amount to Rs.16,38,000/- and continue to deposit the rent per month. 2. Heard Sri. Shravan S. Lokre, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. S. Guru Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent and have perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to project that there is dispute with regard to the rent. If the amount is reduced, he is ready and willing to pay. 4. The concerned Court on the application passes the following order: "7. Point No. 1: Perused the records. The plaintiff filed this application at the stage of Plaintiff evidence. This suit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31738 WP No. 22421 of 2024 is filed for ejectment and Plaintiff claimed the relief of arrears of rent of Rs. 62,25,036/- (as due on 31.08.2022) and till filing of the suit totally amounting to Rs. 90,66,548/- and mense profits/damages at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month from 01.09.2022 till 31.01.2023 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum amounting to Rs. 45,000/- totally amounting to Rs. 10,45,000/- and also prays that the damages at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/- per month from the date of the decree till the date of handing over the physical possession of the suit schedule property. 8. In the written statement as well as objection the Defendant has denied the claim of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- per month from 01.09.2022 till 31.01.2023 along the interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Now the plaintiff has come with this application and sought direction to Defendant deposit rate of rent of Rs.1,26,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit 9. According, to the Plaintiff that the lease agreement dated 12.07.2017 expired on 12.07.2019. The renewed lease period on 01.08.2019 expired on 31.07.2021 and he has specifically stated that the Defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakh by way of cheque as security deposit which was carried forward for the subsequent renewal. The Defendant also agreed that in the event of non-payment of rent for more than three months the Plaintiff holds the right to deduct the total cumulative outstanding/unpaid rent amount adding 12% interest on total outstanding from the security deposit. Since the defendant has committed breach of his agreement, became chronic defaulter in payment of rent etc., the security amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-so deposited is forfieted as agreed between the parties. Further, the Defendant is continued to be is possession of the schedule property without or rights of legal justification. The tenancy is already terminated. Hence, the Defendant is holding the schedule property as a 'Trespasser'. 10. The Plaintiff has relied upon a decision in Kalai Selvan vs. J. Vishnkumar in WP No. 5639 of 2023 wherein Hon'ble High court held that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31738 WP No. 22421 of 2024 "As already noted supra, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in the case of Bangalore Builders (P) Limited vs. P.P. Anthony, reported at ILR 1978 Kar 782, the court has inherent powers during the pendency of ejectment suit to direct the tenant to pay to the landlord, the admitted rate of rent. 11. In the present case, on perusal of averments of the written statement, it discloses that the Plaintiff had sought for payment of rental in cash and in view of the same the lease agreement and its terms were complied and the rents were paid up to date. Because of this reason that the Plaintiff agreed and without any objections or claims thereof executed the agreement of lease deed 01-09-2019. 12. Further, in Statement of Admissions and Denials, the Defendant has agrred to rental agreement from 12.07.2017 and 01.08.2019.It is also admitted that till today the Defendant is in possession of schedule property. Under these circumstances, the Defendant is liable to pay amount for the occupation of suit schedule property. However, the rate of rent of damages per month after filing of this suit is to be considered only after full fledged trial. 13. The Defendant being a tenant cannot squat over the property without paying the rent and therefore, notwithstanding the fact that, mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month is claimed in the suit, subject to determination of the rate of mense profits in the judgment at the time of disposal of the suit, during the pendency of the suit, the Defendant should be pay, at least, the admitted rate of rent to the Plaintiff which shall the be adjusted towards the damages which plaintiff is held to be entitled to, at the time of judgment. Hence, it is necessary to direct the Defendant to pay Rs. 1,26,000/- реr month from the date of filing of the suit till disposal of the suit. Accordingly, I answer this point in " Affirmative". - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31738 WP No. 22421 of 2024 14. Point No.2: Therefore, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The I.A. No.VIII filed by the Plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. Consequently, Defendant is directed to deposit sum of Rs. 1,26,000/- per month from the date of suit from 06.02.2023 to till 29.02.2024 of Rs. 16,38,000/- and continue to deposit of Rs. 1,26,000/- per month. Hence, forth with shall fall due on 10th of every succeeding month till disposal of the present suit." 5. The concerned Court only directs deposit of admitted rent from the date of suit till 29.02.2024, not the disputed rent. 6. In that light, there is no warrant for this Court to interfere with the order so passed in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Finding no perversity in the order, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK