- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33717 MFA No. 4435 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4435 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: MS. LAKSHMI.S AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. RAJIV B, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KATHA NO. 85/2/02, CHARVIKS NEST, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH A STREET, 3RD A CROSS, PRAKRUTHI TOWNSHIP, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU AGARA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM SITUATED AT HORAMAVU AGARA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK PIN CODE 560043 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. ANUPAMA G HEBBAR, ADVOCATE) AND: MS. WINIFRED NORMA SCOTT AGED MAJOR, WIFE OF MR. RODNEY MARTIN SCOTT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KATHA NO. 85/2/02, 10TH A STREET, 3RD A CROSS, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33717 MFA No. 4435 of 2025 CHARVIKS NEST, 2ND FLOOR, PRAKRUTHI TOWNSHIP, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU AGARA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM SITUATED AT HORAMAVU AGARA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK PIN CODE - 560 043 …RESPONDENT (*RESPONDENT- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.24.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1/2024 IN SC NO.335/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACJM, (SCCH-3), BENGALURU, REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 10 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT *Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and award dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Court of VII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM (SCCH-3), on I.A.No.1/2024 in S.C.No.335/2024, thereby, *Retyped and Replaced vide court order dated 17.09.2025 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33717 MFA No. 4435 of 2025 the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of CPC to issue direction to defendant to deposit the amount of Rs.8,000/- per month for the occupation of suit schedule property from October 2023 is dismissed. 3. It is a simple case of the plaintiff that he has filed the suit for eviction against the defendant by contending that defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff’s vendor namely, Ms.Jancy Rosy and during the subsistence of tenancy the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule house from Ms.Jancy Rosy by way of sale deed dated 04.10.2023 and this fact was known by the defendant, therefore there is attornment of tenancy. When this being the fact, the defendant has failed to pay the monthly rent, which constraints the plaintiff to file the suit for eviction. In the suit the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of CPC praying to issue direction to defendant to pay monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- to the plaintiff. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33717 MFA No. 4435 of 2025 4. Upon considering the facts and circumstances the plaintiff has produced copy of registered sale deed dated 04.10.2023, which prima facie proves the fact that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule house from the previous owner Ms.Jancy Rosy thus became the owner of the suit schedule house. But the defendant has started disputing the plaintiff is owner of the property. Therefore, he is reluctant to pay the monthly rent to the plaintiff. 5. It is the contention of plaintiff that the defendant knew this sale transaction between plaintiff and her vendor Ms.Jancy Rosy. There was conversation between the defendant and the previous owner of the property and defendant has requested the vendor of the plaintiff to return the advance amount to vacate the house and also the defendant stated that he was searching for a house and whenever a settled house is searched, then he would vacate the house. When this being the fact the tenancy is continued even after sale transaction when the suit schedule house was purchased by the plaintiff, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33717 MFA No. 4435 of 2025 therefore there is attornment of the tenancy. When this being the fact the trial court is not correct in dismissing the application. 6. Though the defendant may raise several disputes regarding relationship of owner and the tenant, but that must be founded on some valid reasons and there shall be prima facie material disputing relationship of owner and tenant, but defendant in the written statement except denying the averments of the plaint has not made any averments. Therefore, when such vexatious ground is raised regarding dispute of tenancy that could be scrutinized by the trial court, but the trial court has failed in this regard. Therefore, the rejection of application of the plaintiff is not proper. Hence, the application filed by the plaintiff is deserved to be allowed. 7. For the reasons aforesated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33717 MFA No. 4435 of 2025 (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) Subsequently, the application I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC is also allowed. (iii) The defendant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the trial court in which the suit is pending from the month October 2023 till vacating the suit schedule house. (iv) In view of appeal having been disposed of, I.A.No.1/2025 for direction does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48