- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9781 WP No. 32448 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 32448 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K.P. JAYANTHI PRASAD WIFE OF K.P. SRINIVAS PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.13 (OLD NO.306), OLD MARKET ROAD, V.V. PURAM BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MD. ABRAR S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAN KUMAR H.G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHETHAN K S SON OF LATE SHIVAKUMAR K.S. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF NO.2, OLD MARKET ROAD, SAJJAN RAO'S CIRCLE, V.V. PURAM, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004 2. SWATHI K.S DAUGHTER OF LATE SHIVAKUMAR K.S, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF NO.2, OLD MARKET ROAD, SAJJAN RAO'S CIRCLE, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9781 WP No. 32448 of 2024 V.V. PURAM, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEEPAK WAHLE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07/11/2024 IN IA NO. 3/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER / DEFENDANT SEEKING DIRECTION TO THE PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT TO PAY THE BALANCE RENT ARREARS TO THE PETITIONER / DEFENDANT IN OS NO. 5536/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-42 AT BANGALORE VIDE ANN-G AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE SAME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.5536/23 is directed against the interim order dated 07.11.2024 whereby the application I.A.No. 3/2024 filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9781 WP No. 32448 of 2024 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short) was rejected by the trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and perused the records. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondent - tenant instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner - landlord for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the plaint itself, the respondent - tenant specifically contended that she was paying rent to the petitioner - landlord in a sum of ₹1,32,087/- prior to filing of the suit and since the petitioner attempted to interfere with the respondent's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the respondent instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner - defendant. 4. The petitioner - defendant filed the written statement and are contesting the suit and in addition - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9781 WP No. 32448 of 2024 thereto, they filed the instant application I.A.No.3/2024 for direction to the respondent - plaintiff/tenant to deposit the arrears of rent in a sum of ₹62,00,000/- before the trial Court. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the sole ground on which the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner is, by coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had not sought for a counter claim for eviction/ejectment or for arrears of rent and as such in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent - tenant against the petitioner - landlord, and as such an application is not maintainable in law. In my considered opinion, the trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the provisions contained in Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which casts an obligation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9781 WP No. 32448 of 2024 upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent and continue to pay the same during the pendency of the suit, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had not sought for a counter claim for ejectment or for arrears of rent. At any rate, equity demands that the respondent should not be allowed to continue to remain in occupation of the suit schedule property without payment of rent which are undisputedly due by her to the petitioner – landlord, as can be seen from the plaint averments themselves. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and allow the application I.A.No.3/2024 by issuing certain directions. 6. In the result, the following: ORDER i. Petition is hereby allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 07.11.2024 is hereby set aside. iii. Application I.A.No. 3/2024 filed by the petitioner is partly allowed by directing the respondent - plaintiff to pay rent/arrears - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9781 WP No. 32448 of 2024 of rent to the petitioner - defendant @ Rs.1,32,087/- from 29.08.2023 till 28.02.2026 and pay the entire accumulated arrears of rent and to continue to pay the monthly rent payable to the petitioner as and when it falls due till disposal of the suit. iv. It is further directed that in the event the respondent does not pay the arrears of rent from 29.08.2023 to 28.02.2026 and/or does not continue to pay the monthly rent as and when it falls due, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file necessary/appropriate applications before the trial Court in this regard. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BVK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9