- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51832 WP No. 26459 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 26459 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. C.M.RAMACHANDRA S/O C.H.MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT. NO.133, 3RD CROSS, TRIVENI ROAD, K.N. EXTENSION, YESHWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE-560 022. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.S.RAVI., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VASANTH RAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. R.GOVINDRAJ S/O. V.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.54, 4TH CROSS, SUBBANNA GARDEN, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.S.NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.7 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC IN OS NO. 214/2020 C/W OS NO. 5812/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-8) AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51832 WP No. 26459 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. A typographical error has crept into the last line of para 4 of the order dated 05.12.2025. Para 4 as corrected is reproduced below: “Learned counsel for the respondent objects to the multiple adjournment requests and also submits that order dated 14.11.2025 has not been complied with. In addition, he submits that the documents that have been placed on record by the respondents in pursuance of the order passed by the court appear to be fabricated documents and that these have been presented before this court for the first time. It is further contended that the rent receipts pertaining to the year 2018 onwards have never been produced before the Learned Trial Court. He further submits that an enquiry should be directed with regard to the authenticity of the documents filed.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that an affidavit has been filed today. However, he fairly concedes that authenticity of the documents have not been clarified. Learned Senior Counsel submits that he may be heard on merits of the case. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51832 WP No. 26459 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 4. The only contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/defendant is that the admitted rent is not Rs.25,000/- but Rs.18,500/-. He seeks to rely upon the Lease Agreement dated 14.05.2009, more specifically, Clause 5 in this behalf and to para 7 of the affidavit filed by the respondent in this behalf to submit that the agreed rental was not Rs.25,000/- but Rs.18,500/-. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on the other hand draws the attention of the Court to paragraphs 7 to 9 of the affidavit filed by the respondent/plaintiff and submits that the rental of Rs.18,500/- was towards a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- which was repaid in 48 months i.e. by 14.05.2014. He submits thus the admitted rent is Rs.25,000/- per month and not Rs.18,500/- per month. 6. It is apposite to set out the recitals and Clause 5 of the Lease Deed executed between the parties which sets this out below: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51832 WP No. 26459 of 2025 “THIS DEED OF LEASE is made and executed on this the Fourteenth day of May Two Thousands and Nine (14/05/2009) in the city of Bangalore. BETWEEN: MR.R.GOVINDARAJ S/O LATE MR.V.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.1272, 6TH CROSS 6TH MAIN ROAD, TRIVENI ROAD K.N.EXENSION YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE-560 022 Hereinafter called the LESSOR which term shall mean and include his heirs, legal representatives, nominees and agents etc. of the FIRST PART. AND: MR.C.M.RAMACHANDRA S/O MR.C.H.MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOU 50 YEARS NO.28, SECOND CROSS 11TH MAIN ROAD MATHIKERE BANGALORE-560 054 Hereinafter called the LESSEE which term shall mean and include his heirs, legal representatives, nominees, agents, transferees and assignees etc., OF THE OTHER PART. WHEREAS, the Lessor is the absolute owner of the property bearing 133, 3rd cross, Triveni road, K.N.Extension, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560022, consisting of ground floor and roof garden in the first floor and the same is morefully described in the schedule below and herein after called the SCHEDULE PROPERTY, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51832 WP No. 26459 of 2025 which the Lessor has acquired under registered Partition deed dated 16/10/2006 registered as Document No.DBP-1-07025-2006-07 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Dodda Ballapur, Bangalore District. WHEREAS, the Lessor is desirous of letting out the Schedule Property in favour of a suitable person; WHEREAS, the Lessee is in need of a suitable premises for running a Bar and Restaurant including a Beeda stall. WHEREAS, the Lessor on coming to know that the Lessee is in need of a suitable premises for running a Bar and Restaurant including Beeda stall approached the Lessee with an offer to let out the Schedule Property AND WHEREAS, the Lessee has accepted the said offer; NOW WHEREAS THIS DEED OF LEASE WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS: 1. That in consideration of the Lessee having paid a sum of Rupees 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and fifty thousand only) as security deposit to the Lessor by way of cash and having agreed to pay a sum of Rupees 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards rent every month, the lessor hereby hands over the vacant possession of the Schedule Property to the Lessee to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same during the subsistence of the lease period and the Lessor hereby - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51832 WP No. 26459 of 2025 acknowledges the receipt of the said sum of Rupees 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and fifty thousand only) paid by the Lessee as security deposit and the said amount shall be refunded by the Lessor to the Lessee without any interest on the termination of the lease period; 2. That the tenancy is a monthly tenancy commencing from the tenth day of the English calendar month and ending on the tenth day of the next month; 3. That the tenancy is initially for a period of eleven months commencing from tenth day of June 2009. However, the parties are at liberty to extend the said period by mutual consent; 4. That the monthly rent in respect of the Schedule Property is Rupees 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) exclusive of electricity and water charges and the same shall be paid by the Lessee to the Lessor on or before the fifth day of the next succeeding month; 5. That the Lessor has received a sum of Rupees 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) from the Lessee as hand loan in order to renovate the Schedule Property and the said amount shall be returned by the Lessor to the Lessee as early as possible and till such time, the Lessor is entitled to receive only Rs.18,500/- (Rupees Eighteen thousands and five hundreds only) every month towards rent instead of Rupees 25,000/- and thereafter Rupees 25,000/-. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51832 WP No. 26459 of 2025 xxx xxx xxx [Emphasis supplied] 7. The Lease Agreement is dated 14.05.2009 and sets out that the rental for the premises is Rs. 25.000/- per month in clauses 1, 4 and 5 above. In addition, it is stated therein that the lessor (petitioner) has has received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to renovate the property which is to be adjusted by deduction of Rs.6,500/- every month and till then instead of rental of Rs.25,000/- p.m., Rs.18,000/- p.m. will be paid. This has further been explained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Affidavit dated 28.11.2025 filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the following terms: “7. I state that, the Petitioner has contended that, the rate of rent is sum of Rs. 18,500/- as per clause-5 of lease deed dated 14/05/2009, the said statement is totally false and incorrect. I further stated that, at the time of tenancy, the Petitioner has requested to renovate the leased property and the approximate cost for the said renovation has calculated for sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and he has incurred the said renovation charges and thereby the said Rs.4,00,000/- has shown as a loan amount in the lease agreement in order to repay the said amount. I have agreed to deduct sum of Rs.6,500/- per month in the rent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51832 WP No. 26459 of 2025 towards the adjustments of loan amount and remaining amount of Rs. 18,500/- shall be paid as a rent. However, he has not paid the said amount also regularly. 8. I state that, the loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has adjusted from the rents payable to me from the date of lease agreement and the same was cleared in a period of 48 months i.e. on 14.05.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner shall pay the rents at the rate of Rs.25,000/- with enhanced rate of rent as per the terms of agreement. 8. The undisputed facts are that the suit for ejectment was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant being O.S.No.5812/2018. After the suit was filed, a suit for specific performance being O.S.No.214/2020 was filed by the petitioner/defendant against the respondent/plaintiff. It is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation since the agreement of sale on which the suit for specific performance was relied upon is dated 16.01.2012. This contention is controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51832 WP No. 26459 of 2025 9. The learned Trial Court has given a finding that in the absence of a registered sale deed, the possession of the petitioner/defendant as an owner cannot be considered lawful and thus, has held the petitioner/defendant would liable to be compensated for use and occupation of the premises at the admitted rent and has directed payment of Rs.25,000/-per month be paid by the petitioner/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff from the date of filing of the suit onwards. 10. It is not disputed that the premises in issue are being occupied by the petitioner/defendant for the last several years and that no payment is being made towards rental or otherwise, since January 2025. It is also not disputed that a notice dated 18.06.2018 was sent by the respondent/plaintiff to the petitioner/defendant terminating tenancy of the petitioner/defendant. It is further averred that in the suit for ejectment, the amount paid as advance for the subject premises pursuant to the agreement of sale has already been adjusted and that as on date, no amount - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51832 WP No. 26459 of 2025 is due by the respondent/plaintiff to the petitioner/defendant. In these circumstances, it is for the Trial Court to adjudicate finally upon the two suits filed. 11. Concededly, the Lease Agreement is dated 14.05.2009 and the period for which it is executed and the amount which was to be deducted at the rate of Rs.6,500/- equally would have been adjusted not in 41 months but in 61.5 months i.e., by June 2014. Thus, thereafter the amount of Rs.25,000/- per month was to be paid petitioner/defendant. In these circumstances for the petitioner/defendant to contend that the admitted rent is Rs.18,500/- is not correct. 12. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that earlier payments of Rs.25,000/- per month was being paid regularly. However, no payment is made after January 2025. 13. Given these undisputed facts, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Impugner Order. The petition - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51832 WP No. 26459 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner/defendant to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. All pending applications stand closed. 13.1 The compliance of the Impugned Order shall be undertaken by the petitioner/defendant within four weeks from today. 14. It is however clarified that the order passed today will not preclude the parties from raising all their respective contentions before the Trial Court. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN/SNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA