- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53717 WP No. 31824 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 31824 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SUMUKHAYA TRUST REGISTERED OFFICE AT #1840 14TH CROSS, 22ND MAIN HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-1 BANGALORE - 560 102. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRIMARY TRUSTEE: SRI GANESH SAMBASIVAM S. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O. LATE SAMBASIVAM S. …PETITIONER (BY SRI TEJAS N., ADVOCATE AND: 1. SRI MAHENDRA MOHAN S/O. SATHYA MOHANAN AGED MAJOR. PERMANENT R/AT: KOUMUDHI HO, MANISSERY PO, OTTAPALAM PALAKKAD - 679 521. ALSO AT: MAHENDRA MOHAN S/O. SATHYA MOHANAN AGED MAJOR #529, 15TH CROSS 17TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT SECTOR 4 BENGALURU - 560 102. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53717 WP No. 31824 of 2025 ALSO AT: MAHENDRA MOHAN S/O. SATHYA MOHANAN AGED MAJOR, MARS ARCHITECTS, S202, TOWER 1, ARDENT OFFICE ONE, HOODI CIRCLE, HOODI, BENGALURU - 560 105. ALSO AT: MAHENDRA MOHAN S/O. SATHYA MOHANAN AGED MAJOR MARS ARCHITECTS, LRRA 03 LAKSHMI ROAD, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, KERALA - 679 521. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHIVAGONDAPPA SUBHASHCHANDRA ZULAPI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16-09-2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH - 5) IN O.S.NO.7542/2024 ON I.A. NO.2 (AS PER ANNEXURE -A) AND STRIKE OUT THE DEFENCE OF THE RESPONDENT FILED IN O.S.NO.7542/2024 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 5) (I.E., WRITTEN STATEMENT) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53717 WP No. 31824 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 2. With consent of learned counsels for parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. This petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed on the application filed under Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.7542/2024 by IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court rejected the application filed by the plaintiff to strike out the defence of the respondent-defendant for willful disobedience of the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53717 WP No. 31824 of 2025 5. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who has instituted a suit in O.S.No.7542/2024 against the respondent - defendant before the trial Court seeking the following reliefs: "a. Direct the Defendant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises in favour of the Plaintiff. b. Direct the Defendant to pay a sum of Rss.7,60,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Sixty thousand) being the arrears of rent with future interest at 18% per annum. c. Defendant be directed to pay future rent of Rs.1,90,000/- per month or such other enhanced rate as this Hon’ble Court deems fit from the date of filing of suit till delivery of vacant possession of suit schedule property. d. Defendant be directed to pay an amount of Rs.22,432/- due towards BWSSB and Electricity Charges. e. Costs of the suit be awarded. f. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53717 WP No. 31824 of 2025 6. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.1 under Section 151 of CPC to direct the defendant-tenant to pay the admitted monthly rent of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Only) from the date of filing the suit till disposal. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court by its order dated 20.03.2025 by directing the defendant to pay Rs.7,60,000/- from the date of filing till February- 2025 and Rs.1,90,000/- per month from March-2025 till disposal of the suit or any further orders before the Court either in cash, cheque or D.D. or transfer. 7. Since the defendant did not make the payment of admitted rent, the plaintiff was constrained to file another application under Section 151 of CPC to strike out the defence of the defendant for willful disobedience of the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the trial Court. The said application came to be rejected on 16.09.2025 by the trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53717 WP No. 31824 of 2025 8. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2025, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for plaintiff that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is arbitrary, erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. He also contends that the trial Court has not considered the application of striking out of the pleadings, but in a mechanical manner and has rejected the application, though it is apparently clear that the defendant-tenant has not paid either the admitted rent or the rent ordered by this Court vide its previous order. 10. Learned counsel for plaintiff further contends that the order passed by the trial Court is illegal and perverse, which is not tenable for the reason that the trial Court has held that it would have taken into consideration the difficulties faced by the defendant during the tenancy, in view of the acts of the plaintiff. Since the evidence has already been recorded and the matter is posted for further - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53717 WP No. 31824 of 2025 chief-examination, the plaintiff filed an application to strike out the defence of the defendant for willful disobedience of the order dated 20.03.2025. The trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the defendant has not complied the orders passed by the trial Court for deposit of the rents and more than that, the deposit of the rent does not mean that, the plaintiff has won the suit rather that deposit will be in the custody of the Court. 11. It is also contended by learned counsel for plaintiff that the defendant has not deposited the rent before the trial Court. Therefore, the question of passing such an order is totally illegal, perverse and is not sustainable. It is also illegally ordered by the trial Court that merely because the defendant has not complied the order, the trial Court cannot take such serious action against him for striking out the defence itself, which is not in consonance with the provisions of striking out of the pleadings and the tenant being put in a better position for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53717 WP No. 31824 of 2025 non-payment of admitted rent, which is claimed by the plaintiff. 12. It is further contended by learned counsel for plaintiff that the trial Court, vide its order dated 20.03.2025, directed the defendant-tenant to make the payment of rent, which is willfully disobeyed and admittedly, the defendant has not paid any rent, whereby the defendant is making a mockery of the judicial system, taking advantage of the adjournment and orders like this being passed in his favour despite being a recalcitrant and stubborn tenant. Therefore, he seeks to allow his petition and the defence of the defendant be struck of for non- compliance of the order and non-payment of rent. 13. Per contra, it is contention of the learned counsel for defendant that the plaintiff is deliberately dumping construction material in the residential house of the defendant only with an intention to harass the defendant. However, learned counsel for defendant agrees that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53717 WP No. 31824 of 2025 defendant has not paid the admitted rent, as claimed by the plaintiff, so also, the order dated 20.03.2025 being not complied. 14. Learned counsel for respondent-defendant submits that the defendant is willing to pay the rent, if the memo of calculation is filed by the plaintiff-landlord. He also submits that if reasonable time is granted, he would pay the rent of Rs.7,60,000/- as ordered by the trial Court. Therefore, he seeks further time to pay the rent. 15. I have heard learned counsels for parties. Apparently, there is no dispute with regard to the jural relationship of plaintiff and defendant and monthly rent with regard to the order dated 20.03.2025, whereby the trial Court has directed the defendant to pay Rs.7,60,000/- from the date of filing till February-2025 and Rs.1,90,000/- per month from March-2025 till disposal of the suit or any further orders before the Court either in cash, cheque or D.D. or transfer. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53717 WP No. 31824 of 2025 16. It is also not in dispute that the defendant has not paid the rent as ordered by the trial Court. Apart from the fact that there is security deposit amount of Rs.9,50,000/-, it is of course open to the trial Court to deduct the arrears of rent from the security deposit amount. 17. Learned counsel for plaintiff contends that along with the plaint itself, he had mentioned at para-11 that the arrears of rent due from the defendant after deducting the security deposit amount of Rs.9,50,000/-, it would come to Rs.7,60,000/-. 18. Having considered all these aspects, the trial Court passed an order on 20.03.2025, taking into consideration the security deposit of Rs.9,50,000/- paid by the defendant. Therefore, it is apparently clear that after deduction of Rs.9,50,000/-, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the arrears of Rs.7,60,000/- from the date of filing till February 2025 and Rs.1,90,000/- per month - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53717 WP No. 31824 of 2025 from March 2025 till disposal of the suit are to be deposited by the defendant, which has not been deposited till date. 19. In view of the fact that the defendant has now sought sometime to deposit the said amount, this Court deems it appropriate to grant reasonable time of two weeks from today to deposit a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- as ordered by the trial Court on 20.03.2025 and thereafter, four weeks to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,90,000/- per month from May 2025, the upto date rent. 20. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is allowed-in-part; ii. The respondent-defendant is hereby directed to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs.7,60,000/- i.e., from the date of filing till February 2025 within two weeks from today either to the account of the plaintiff or deposit it before the Court; - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53717 WP No. 31824 of 2025 iii. The respondent-defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- per month from March 2025 within a period of four weeks thereafter either to the account of the plaintiff or deposit it before the Court either by way of cash or DD or RTGS. iv. It is made clear that if the amount as ordered hereinabove is not deposited within the time frame granted herein, the application filed by the petitioner would stand allowed and the defence of the defendant would be 'struck out' for non- compliance and the defendant being a recalcitrant tenant in contumacious defiance of the order of the trial Court. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2