- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27896 W.P. No.21692/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.21692/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. D. BADRI NARAYAN PRASAD AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O T. BALAJI PRASAD RESIDING AT NO. 80 5TH CROSS, TANK ROAD N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570010. 2. SMT. B. KOKILA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O SRI. D. BADRI NARAYANA PRASAD RESIDING AT NO. 80 5TH CROSS, TANK ROAD N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. Y.V. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. RIAZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE SAHEBJAN N. KAUVERI SILK AND HANDICRAFT EMPORIUM NO. 3149, NEW NO. L-1 DAWOOD KHAN STREET FIVE LIGHTS CIRCLE LASHKAR MOHALLA MYSURU - 570001. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27896 W.P. No.21692/2023 2. SRI. ILLIYAZ BAIG AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O GHOUSE BAIG N. KAUVERI SILK AND HANDICRAFT EMPORIUM NO. 3149, NEW NO. L-1 DAWOOD KHAN STREET FIVE LIGHTS CIRCLE LASHKAR MOHALLA MYSURU - 570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHISH RAM D, ADV., FOR SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY D, ADV., FOR C/RESPONDENTS) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER 23/08/2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 826/2021 BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW SAID I.A. NO. 7 THEREIN, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE W.P. & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 23.08.2023 passed on IA.No.7 in OS.No.826/2021 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.Y.V.Prakash, learned counsel for Sri.Y.K.Narayana Sharma, learned counsel appearing for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27896 W.P. No.21692/2023 the petitioners submits that petitioners filed a suit against the respondents seeking possession and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. It is submitted that in the reply notice, the defendants clearly admitted that there are two agreements between the parties in respect of the schedule item Nos.1, 2 and 3 and as per the said agreements, the defendants are required to pay a monthly rent of Rs.3,75,000/-. However, in the written statement filed before the trial Court, the defendants have completely denied the said liability. It is further submitted that the petitioners filed an application seeking a direction to the respondents to deposit the admitted rent amount, but the trial Court erroneously rejected the said application. It is also submitted that when there is a clear admission on the part of the defendants in the reply notice that the admitted rent is Rs.3,75,000/-, the trial Court ought to have directed the defendants to deposit the said amount before it till disposal of the suit. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27896 W.P. No.21692/2023 3. Per contra, Sri.Ashish Ram D., learned counsel appearing for Sri.Krishna Murthy D., learned counsel for the respondents/defendants supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the admitted rent amount is only Rs.1,00,000/- per month and denies the allegation that the respondents are in possession of the second floor of the property as stated in the plaint. It is submitted that the defendants have paid a security deposit of Rs.77,00,000/-, which is clearly mentioned in the written statement and the defendants are ready to vacate the premises if the security amount is refunded. It is further submitted that no arrears of rent are due. In reply, Sri.Y.V.Prakash submits that rent has remained unpaid from January 2020 onwards. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27896 W.P. No.21692/2023 5. The petitioners have filed OS.No.826/2021 seeking a decree directing the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property, recovery of Rs.63,75,000/- towards arrears of rent and Rs.15,00,000 as damages, in all Rs.78,75,300/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of institution of suit till the payment is made and also sought an inquiry regarding the mesne profits from the date of institution of suit till handing over the possession. The said suit is opposed by the respondents by filing a written statement. The assertion of the petitioners is that there are two agreements between the parties, both dated 17.03.2008, with regard to the schedule item Nos.1, 2 and 3 properties and as per the both agreements, the defendants agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.3,75,000/-. It is further contended that this agreed rent was admitted by the defendants in their reply notice dated 10.05.2021. 6. It is to be noticed that the said assertions in the plaint have been categorically denied by the defendants in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27896 W.P. No.21692/2023 their written statement. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners for deposit of amount as per the agreements. It is further to be noticed that the said assertions of the petitioners is that the agreed rent is Rs.3,75,000/- per month, but as per the defendants the agreed rent is Rs.1,00,000/- per month. When the parties to the proceedings are seriously disputing with regard to the rents payable, the appropriate course would be to conduct enquiry during the course of the trial with regard to the said assertion. In the absence of such enquiry, issuing direction at the interlocutory stage to deposit the amount of Rs.3,75,000/- would not be appropriate. As per the respondents, the agreed rent is Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Hence, it would be appropriate to order the payment of said amount to the petitioners instead of depositing before the Court. With the aforesaid observations, parties are permitted to file their respective memos of calculation before the trial Court. Accordingly, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27896 W.P. No.21692/2023 the writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned orders. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5