- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43944 WP No. 20676 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20676 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. AYUB-UR-REHMAN S/O MUMTAZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. MRS. SYEDA REHIMA SHIFAA. W/O. AYUB-UR-REHMAN. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH PETITIONERS 1 & 2 R/A. CASA ANDREE II, FLAT NO B-1, 1ST FLOOR, NO. 18/3, BHEEMANNA GARDEN, AKKITHIMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 027. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SYEDA SHEHNAZ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BALAKRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. KAVERI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS D/O. LATE CHANDRAPPA. R/A.NO.38, 4TH CROSS, NEW BEL ROAD, ITI LAYOUT, Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43944 WP No. 20676 of 2025 RMV 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560 054. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NATARAJA H C., ADVOCATE) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.3392/2022 PENDING IN THE FILE OF HON'BLE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH- 44) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.3392/2022 by the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.44), Bangalore. 2. Smt.Syeda Shehnaz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent has filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioners and in the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43944 WP No. 20676 of 2025 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to implead Smt.Himanshi V Vachani and Smt.Poonam A.K.Vachani as parties to the suit on the ground that the plaintiff, during the cross-examination on 16.12.2024 has clearly admitted that Smt.Himanshi V Vachani and Smt.Poonam A.K.Vachani are the landlords. It is submitted that the proposed defendants are the owners of the property in question and they have inducted the petitioners into the premises. The original owners intend to sell the property in favour of the petitioners and there were discussions with regard to the purchase of the property. Pursuant to the said discussions, the petitioners have transferred Rs.26,50,000/- to the proposed defendants as a part sale consideration. It is further submitted that Smt.Himanshi V Vachani executed a tenancy agreement on 01.05.2012. After completion of the term of the agreement, it was terminated and thereafter, Smt.Poonam A.K.Vachani executed a fresh tenancy agreement on 01.04.2014. By virtue of the said agreement, the petitioners are in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43944 WP No. 20676 of 2025 possession of the premises. Unless the proposed defendants are arrayed as parties to the proceedings, it would be difficult to adjudicate the pending suit. It is also submitted that a substantial amount of Rs.26,50,000/- is paid to the proposed defendants as the sale consideration and they being the owners of the premises, the suit cannot be proceeded without impleading them. Hence, the proposed defendants are the necessary and proper parties. Therefore, she seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order of the Trial Court and to implead the proposed defendants Smt.Himanshi V Vachani and Smt.Poonam A.K.Vachani as the defendants in the suit. 3. Per contra, Sri.Nataraja H.C., learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the proposed defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties to decide the suit filed by the respondent for ejectment. The respondent purchased the property in question in the year 1995 and thereafter, entered into a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43944 WP No. 20676 of 2025 tenancy agreement with the petitioners on 01.05.2012 and from the said date, the petitioners have paid the rents every month to the respondent-plaintiff which is evident from the bank's statement. It is further submitted that the suit is being one for ejectment, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the jurial relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. Hence, the proposed defendants are strangers to the proceedings. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 5. The records indicate that the respondent- plaintiff has filed O.S.No.3392/2022 for the relief of ejectment, thereby directing the defendants to quit, evict and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43944 WP No. 20676 of 2025 property to the plaintiff. The defendants filed a detailed written statement denying the jurial relationship of the landlord and tenant. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the written statement, it is specifically contented that the defendants are the tenants under Smt.Himanshi V Vachani and Smt.Poonam A.K.Vachani and not under the plaintiff. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to implead Smt.Himanshi V Vachani and Smt.Poonam A.K.Vachani as the defendants to the suit on the ground that they are the landlords of the petitioners-defendants and without their presence, the suit cannot be proceeded. The Trial Court considered the same and by the impugned order, rejected the said application. 6. The assertion of the defendant is that Smt.Himanshi V Vachani and Smt.Poonam A.K.Vachani are the landlords and they executed the tenancy agreements in their favour for the respective periods. It is further - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43944 WP No. 20676 of 2025 contended that the petitioners have paid Rs.26,50,000/- as part sale consideration to purchase the suit schedule property. In my considered view, the said contention cannot be accepted as the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is for ejectment based on the tenancy agreement dated 01.05.2012 and it is the plaintiff who is required to establish the jurial relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants in the pending suit which is not a suit for title. The plaintiff has clearly averred in the plaint that she becomes the absolute owner of the property in question in the year 1995 and thereafter, has inducted the petitioners as tenants under the tenancy agreement dated 01.05.2012. The plaintiff has also produced the tenancy agreement dated 01.05.2012, which is marked as Ex.P1 and also the bank statement which is marked as Ex.P2. The aforesaid documents prima facie prove that the petitioners have been inducted as tenants by the respondent and they have paid the rents to the respondent herein. Such being the case, I do not find any - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43944 WP No. 20676 of 2025 error or perversity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court in rejecting the application for impleadment. 7. It is made clear that the findings in this petition are restricted only to adjudicate the present proceedings. The issue of jurial relationship is required to be decided by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8