- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5982 WP No. 17748 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 17748 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B S KUMAR S/O. B.R. SATYANARAYANA SETTY P. AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.248-249, 10TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANSHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU-560070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP H S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI D L VISHWANATH S/O.LATE D. LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.140, 26TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560070. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHETAN NAG S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A). ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5982 WP No. 17748 of 2025 ORDER DATED 02.06.2025 IN S.C.NO.825/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AT BENGALURU (SCCH 13), CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER 11 RULE 14 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC (ANNEXURE D), AND ETC. 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 S.C 825/2024, is directed against the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 passed on I.A No. 5 by the II Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 14 CPC seeking a direction to the respondent / plaintiff to produce the original lease agreement dated 01.07.1994, was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5982 WP No. 17748 of 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent / landlord instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner / tenant for eviction / ejectment of the petitioner from the suit schedule premises, arrears of rent and for other reliefs. The said suit is being contested by the petitioner / defendant. At the stage of cross-examination of PW-1, the petitioner filed the instant application I.A No. 5 under Order XI Rule 14 CPC seeking for a direction to the respondent to produce the original unregistered lease agreement dated 01.07.1994 which was said to have contained an endorsement / note, extending / renewing the lease for a lifetime. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application by holding as under: "ORDERS ON I.A.NO.5 The defendant has filed this application under Order 11 Rule 14 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC seeking this Court to issue direction to the plaintiff for production of original lease agreement. 2. Through annexed affidavit the defendant has stated that the present case is based upon the alleged un- registered lease agreement dated 1.7.1994, which initially for a period of 11 months commencing from 1.7.1994. As per agreement, the defendant has paid an advance security - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5982 WP No. 17748 of 2025 amount of Rs.60,000/- and agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.2,600/ P.M. Upon the expiry of initial lease period, the lease was allegedly renewed for a further period of 2 years on the same terms and condition, by way of a note endorsed on the original lease deed dated 01.7.1994. 3. The defendant has taken contention that in addition to refundable security deposit amount of addition to Rs.60,000/-, he also paid a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 1998. He contends that he was granted continued possession of the premises for the duration his life time. Therefore the original lease agreement is crucial to establish the case of the plaintiff. However, though the lease agreement is in the custody of the plaintiff, he has deliberately withheld it and failed to produce it before this court. Hence this application. 4. The plaintiff has contended in his objection that the defendant admitted the jural relationship between plaintiff and defendant in his written statement. The rent agreement is also available with the defendant, he can be produced the same. The photocopy of the rental agreement was produced along with the plaint. The signature on the photo copy corresponds with the defendant's signature found in his written statement. On these grounds he prays for rejection of the application. 5. Heard both side. Perused the materials available on plaint. 6. The point that arise for my consideration are:- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5982 WP No. 17748 of 2025 1. Whether the defendant has made out sufficient grounds to issue direction to the plaintiff for production of lease agreement? 2. What order. 7. My answer to the above points are as follows; Point No.1: In the Negative; Point No.2: As per the final order for the following; REASONS Point No.1: Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act defines 'burden of proof' which clearly lays down that the whosoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or law dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Thus, the evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving fact always lies upon the person who asserts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. 9. Both the parties cannot succeed on the weakness of the opponent but they have to probabilise their case by producing genuine documents. In the present case on hand, the plaintiff has stated that the defendant is a tenant under him and the plaintiff is required the suit premises as he wanted it to his personal use and sought relief of eviction. The defendant also admitted that he is a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule premises on a rent of Rs.2,600/- P.M. in para 6 of his written statement. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5982 WP No. 17748 of 2025 10. The defendant has merely contended that he is not a monthly tenant but a life time tenant. In order to establish the said fact he has filed this present application seeking issuance of direction for production of the original lease agreement. 11. The plaintiff has produced photo copy of the lease agreement stating that the original lease agreement is not in his possession but rather in the possession of the defendant. During the course of his cross examination, PW1 categorically stated that the lease agreement is with the defendant. Therefore this court is of view that it cannot direct or asked to produce the original lease agreement. 12. The defendant has neither disputed his status as a tenant under the plaintiff nor denied payment of monthly rent of Rs.2,600/- Ρ.Μ. Therefore, the burden of proof lies upon the defendant to substantiate that he is the life time tenant under the plaintiff based on the alleged payment an additional security deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 1998. 13. In the partial cross examination, it has already been conducted by the defendant, no questions are put to PW1, so far life time tenant under the plaintiff is concerned. Further PW1 has stated that the lease agreement is with the defendant. I do not find any suggestion to effect that the defendant is a life time tenant under the plaintiff. When such a foundation has not been made, I do not find this application is maintainable. Hence I answer point no.1 in the negative. 14. Point No.2: In view of my discussion, I answer the above point in negative for the following:- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5982 WP No. 17748 of 2025 ORDER Application filed by the defendant under Order 11 Rule 14 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC is rejected." 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record and has recorded a correct finding that the petitioner would not be entitled to seek a direction to the respondent to produce the said document. In this context, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent / plaintiff has specifically stated that he does not have custody or possession of the alleged original lease agreement containing a note dated 01.07.1994 and as such, the question of directing the respondent to produce the said document, would not arise in the facts and circumstances obtained in the instant case. It is also significant to note that even according to the petitioner, the said lease agreement is an unregistered document and in the light of the well-settled position that any lease exceeding a period of one year would be compulsorily registerable in terms of Sections 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Trial Court was fully justified in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5982 WP No. 17748 of 2025 rejecting / declining the request of the petitioner for a direction to the respondent to produce the original lease deed especially even assuming the lease deed was produced, no lease beyond a monthly lease would be created under the said document. 5. Under these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting I.A.No.5 and the impugned order cannot be said to be capricious or perverse nor can the same be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 (ii) K.P. Natarajan and Another Vs. Muthalammal & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 3443 and (iii) Mohamed Ali Vs. Jaya & Ors. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 477. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is thereby dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5982 WP No. 17748 of 2025 7. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1