- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15568 WP No. 15556 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 15556 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. VENKATAMARUTHY SUDHAKAR RAO S/O SUBBA RAO K AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO. 70 (NEW NUMBER 289), KHATHA NO. 42, SY. NO. 4/5, SITUATED AT SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, SRIGANDADA KAVLU DHAKALE, YASHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 091. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR G.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD., "CHOLA CREST", C54-55 & SUPER B-4, THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15568 WP No. 15556 of 2025 GUINDY, CHENNAI - 600 032, REP. BY PRESIDENT. 2. SANJAY SAIPRASAD AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A 289, 10TH CROSS, HOYSALA NAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU - 560 091. &RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST EVICTION - ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS, THEIR AGENTS, SERVANTS OR ANY THIRD PARTY CLAIMING THROUGH THEM FROM FORCIBLY EVICTING THE PETITIONER FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15568 WP No. 15556 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "WHEREFORE, the Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the following manner, a. Injunctive Relief against Eviction: Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants or any third party claiming through them from forcibly evicting the Petitioner from the schedule property, without due process of law. b. Protection Against Dispossession Post-Auction: Direct Respondent No. 1 (the lender/auctioning bank) to recognize tenancy rights of Petitioner & not interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession of Schedule without approaching a competent civil court for eviction. c. Relief for Refund of Advance Amount: Issue appropriate directions to Respondent No. 2 to refund the security deposit/advance amount received from the Petitioner, in the event of auction and consequent dispossession." 2. The reliefs sought by the petitioner, as extracted in the prayer portion, are essentially threefold, namely: (i) to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the schedule property without following due process of law; (ii) to direct the first respondent3lender to recognise the alleged tenancy rights and not interfere with the petitioner9s possession - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15568 WP No. 15556 of 2025 except through a competent civil court; and (iii) to direct the second respondent to refund the advance/security deposit in the event of auction and dispossession. 3. On a careful consideration of the nature of these reliefs, this Court is of the view that the dispute projected by the petitioner is predominantly civil in nature, arising out of an alleged landlord3tenant relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent. The question as to whether the petitioner is a lawful tenant, whether such tenancy binds the secured creditor, and whether the petitioner is entitled to protection against eviction are all matters that require adjudication of disputed questions of fact and enforcement of private rights, which cannot be conveniently or appropriately examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Insofar as the prayer seeking protection against dispossession is concerned, it is well-settled that even a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed otherwise than by due process of law; however, the enforcement of such a right, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15568 WP No. 15556 of 2025 particularly when seriously disputed, has to be sought before a competent civil court by instituting an appropriate suit for injunction or declaration. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to adjudicate and enforce such private civil rights between parties, especially when the relationship itself and the extent of rights flowing therefrom are in dispute. Equally, the prayer seeking a direction to the first respondent3financial institution to recognise the tenancy and refrain from interference is not maintainable in writ jurisdiction, as the secured creditor is entitled to proceed in accordance with law, and any grievance as against such action has to be worked out in the manner known to law before the appropriate forum. 5. The further relief seeking refund of the advance/security deposit from the second respondent is also a purely contractual claim arising out of the rental agreement. Such a claim involves determination of contractual obligations and possible evidence regarding payment, terms of agreement and consequences of termination, all of which fall squarely within the domain of a civil court. This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, would not undertake such an adjudication. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15568 WP No. 15556 of 2025 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reliefs sought. The petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate civil remedies before a competent civil court, where all contentions are left open to be urged. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5