- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34855 WP No. 6727 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6727 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MRS. RUDRANAMMA W/O LATE B.C. RENUKARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO. 54, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, NANDHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYARAMA BHATT S, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. BANGARASWAMY S/O LATE SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OLD NO. 34, NEW NO. 19, 3RD CROSS, GURURAJA LAYOUT, BSK 2ND STAGE, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. ALSO AT NO. 266, SHOP NO 2, 4U MOBILES, GANGA SHOPPING CENTRE, NATAKARATNA GUBBI VEERANNA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. VEDA MURTHY M.V, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34855 WP No. 6727 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRAIL COURT ON IA NO-2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-P TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT CONTINUE TO DEPOSIT THE RENT BEFORE THE TRAIL COURT UNTIL DISPOSAL OF THE SUIT BEFORE THE TRAIL COURT EVERY MONTH AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 19.11.2024 by which the concerned Court rejects the application of the petitioner-plaintiff seeking deposit of rents from the hands of the respondent. The petitioner claims to be in possession of certain shops which were initially rented out by one Shri B C Renukaradhya. Petitioner is the wife of late B C Renukaradhya. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34855 WP No. 6727 of 2025 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was preferred before the concerned Court in O.S.No.872/2024 praying for deposit of rents taking que from the orders passed in RFA or an interim order passed in the writ petition which is appended to the subject petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent ought to pay rent to the present petitioner for squatting him over the property belonging to the petitioner, without payment of any rent. 4. Learned Senior counsel Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar appearing for the respondent would submit that the property belongs to the Muzrai department, for it having been declared, way back in the year 1980. Initially the rooms were rented out to these petitioners and those petitioners have converted the rooms into shops, and rented it out. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34855 WP No. 6727 of 2025 5. She would take this Court through a particular order passed by the Muzrai department, way back in the year 1987 to prima facie demonstrate that the petitioners are holding the property unauthorisedly. 6. Be that as it may, there is no warrant of interference to the order passed by the concerned Court which rejects the application seeking deposit of rents by the respondents to the hands of the petitioner. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court are cogent and coherent. In that light, the petition lacking in merit stands rejected. 7. All the contentions of both the parties are left open to be urged before the concerned Court in the pending suit. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73