- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18056 RFA No. 191 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 191 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. HEERALAL BOHRA S/O. ANRAJ N.BHORA, AGE 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.487, SUN SHINE ENCLAVE FLAT NO.202, 38TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560070. &APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.A. DEVANAND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. T. THYUMANAVAN S/O. LATE R.THYGARAJAN, AGE 65 YEARS, 2. SMT. GAYATHRI.T, W/O. T.THAYUNANAVAN, AGE 64 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.70, G.R. GRAND RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.BT3, J.P. NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE -560078, &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHARGAV BHONSLE, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2025 PASSED IN OS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18056 RFA No. 191 of 2026 NO.5398/2021 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-02), BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION AND RECOVERY OF RENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant/defendant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2025, passed in O.S.No.5398/2021 by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) by which, the suit for ejectment was decreed and the appellant/defendant was directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court has further directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,402/- towards arrears of rent from April, 2021 till 30.09.2021. It also directed that he is liable to pay mesne profits from 01.10.2021 till the date of eviction along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. (i) The respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.5398/2021 contending that they were the owners of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18056 RFA No. 191 of 2026 suit property. They had executed a special power of attorney dated 14.07.2017 in favour of M/s.City Synapse Information Private Limited, authorising it to identify tenants, collection of the license/lease amount from such tenants and to remit the same to the plaintiffs/respondents. In the year 2017 M/s.City Synapse Information Private Limited identified the appellant/defendant who agreed to take on flat No.202 i.e. the suit schedule property on rent. Later, in the year 2019 M/s. Nestaway Technologies Private limited acquired M/s.City Synapse Information Private Limited and entered into a service agreement with the plaintiffs/respondents on 08.12.2019, wherein it undertook to find tenants for the suit property, collect rents from the tenants and remit it to the plaintiffs/respondents. (ii) The respondents/plaintiffs claimed that they had authorised M/s. Nestaway Technologies Private Limited to enter into a leave and license agreement on their behalf in respect of the suit schedule property. They further contended that the appellant/defendant continued to pay rent to Ms/.Nestaway Technologies Private Limited after entering into a fresh leave and license agreement dated 12.09.2019 with the respondents. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18056 RFA No. 191 of 2026 They claimed that the appellant/defendant had agreed to pay enhanced rent at the rate of 5% on the last paid rent after lapse of 11 months from the effective date of the agreement. They further contended that the defendant fell in arrears of rent from April, 2021 till September, 2021. They further contended that when they objected to the appellant/defendant continuing in possession of the premises, he filed O.S. No.1406/2021 for perpetual injunction. Thereafter, the plaintiffs lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police at Jayanagara on 06.02.2021, which resulted in NCR No.22/2021, pursuant to which, the appellant was summoned and he purportedly undertook to vacate the premises. However, the defendant neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises. He also failed to renew the agreement, which expired on 12.08.2020. The plaintiffs therefore terminated the license of the defendant and issued a notice of termination on 26.08.2021 which was served on 27.08.2021. However, the appellant/defendant failed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property. Hence the respondents/plaintiffs were advised to file a suit for ejectment. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18056 RFA No. 191 of 2026 3. The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant who admitted that he was a tenant in the suit schedule property. He further admitted that he had initially entered into a lease agreement with M/s. City Synapse Information Private Limited and thereafter entered into a renewal of the agreement with M/s.Nestaway Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 02.10.2020. He also admitted that he had occupied the suit schedule property as a tenant on 08.12.2019, but claimed that he had paid a security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- to M/s.City Synapse Information Private Limited which was subsequently transferred to M/s. Nestaway Technologies Private Limited. He alleged that the plaintiffs had sent a message through WhatsApp on 29.12.2020 directing him not to pay the rent to M/s. Nestaway Technologies Private Limited, which gave rise to a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant and thereafter, he was constrained to file O.S.No.1406/2021 seeking injunctive relief. He also admitted that he was summoned by the Police at Jayanagara station. He claimed that at the police station, he was advised to pay rent of Rs.40,000/- per month to the respondents and accordingly he is paying the rent. He claimed that he is not in arrears of rent. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18056 RFA No. 191 of 2026 4. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they have terminated the tenancy of defendant by issuing legal notice on 26.08.2021 as contemplated under Section 106 of T.P. Act? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for balance rent of Rs.1,10,402/-? 3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits for unlawful occupation of the suit schedule property by defendant? 4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as sought for? 5. What Decree or Order?" 5. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and he marked Exs.P1 to P10. The defendant was examined as DW.1 and he marked Ex.D1. 6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs had proved that they were the owners of the suit schedule property and that they had rented out the suit schedule property to the defendant. It - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18056 RFA No. 191 of 2026 further held that the defendant was bound to pay arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month and after factoring escalation at the rate of 5% after every 11 months from 12.09.2019, it held that the defendant is liable to pay monthly rent of Rs.42,000/-. Consequently, it decreed the suit and directed the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court also directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,402/- towards arrears of rent from April, 2021 to 30.09.2021. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the defendant is in appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs.1,10,402/- before this Court as directed by the Trial Court. He contends that the appellant was a tenant inducted in the premises by M/s.Nestaway Technologies Private Limited and therefore the respondents are not entitled in law to evict the appellant. 9. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that M/s.Nestaway Technologies Private Limited was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18056 RFA No. 191 of 2026 not the owner of the suit schedule property but was authorized by the respondents to identify tenants to be inducted in the suit schedule property. He contended that the appellant had also entered into an agreement with M/s.Nestaway Techonologies Private Limited as a representative of the respondents and therefore the appellant had tacitly admitted that the respondents were the owners of the suit schedule property and that he was inducted into the said property by the respondents through their agent, namely M/s. Nestaway Technologies Private Limited. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. 11. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court warrants interference?" 12. A perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant shows that he admitted that he was a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18056 RFA No. 191 of 2026 tenant in the suit schedule property. He also admitted that he had entered into a lease agreement with M/s. Nestaway Technologies Private Limited, who was the agent of the respondents/plaintiffs. 13. In that view of the matter, the appellant/defendant cannot challenge the authority of respondent No.2 or dispute that the respondents are the owners of the suit schedule property or contend that he was not inducted into the suit schedule property by the representative of the respondents/plaintiffs. The appellant/defendant has not denied receipt of the notice of termination of the tenancy and hence, the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit. 14. As regards the arrears of rent, since it is stated by the appellant that he has already deposited sum of Rs.1,10,402/-, the said portion of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is satisfied. 15. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court could not have factored 5% escalation on the last paid rent to determine the mesne profits, the same does not merit acceptance, as the property is situated - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18056 RFA No. 191 of 2026 in an upscale locality, namely, Jayanagar, where there is a high demand for housing and therefore, the escalation at 5% per annum determined by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 16. In so far as the other portion, namely, the mesne profits from 01.10.2021 till the date of this order, the respondents/plaintiffs are liberty to work out their remedy before the Trial Court. Having regard to the fact that the property in question is a residential premises, it is appropriate to grant reasonable time to the appellant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property subject to the appellant paying the present market rate of rent, which this Court assesses at sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. 17. In that view of the matter this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is granted three months' time to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property subject to the appellant paying monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- to the respondents every month without any default. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18056 RFA No. 191 of 2026 18. It is made clear that in case the appellant fails to pay the rent for any month, the respondents shall be entitled to execute the judgment and decree. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31