- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.39811 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PALAKOLANU SUDHAKAR REDDY S/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, DARSHAN LAYOUT, KADUBEESANAHALLI, PANATHUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 103. 2. SMT PALAKOLANU SOWJANYA W/O PALAKOLANU SUDHAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, DARSHAN LAYOUT, KADUBEESANAHALLI, PANATHUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHANCHU SANDHYA RANI W/O CHUNCHU RAMA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.405, BLOCK NO.7, PANCHAVATI APARTMENT ANAND PETA EXTENSION, PONNUR ROAD, KITHAPETA, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH – 522 003. 2. SRI CHUNCHU RAMA KRISHNA S/O CHUNCHU VENKATA SESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.405, BLOCK NO.7, PANCHAVATI APARTMENT ANAND PETA EXTENSION, PONNUR ROAD, KITHAPETA, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH – 522 003. Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI KANDI NAGI REDDY, S/O KANDI ANJI REDDY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.405 BLOCK NO.7, PANCHAVATI APARTMENT ANAND PETA EXTENSION, PONNUR ROAD, KITHAPETA, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH 522 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 18.12.2025 PASSED IN IA NO.II IN COM.O.S.NO.134/2025 BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU (ANNX-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendants in Commercial O.S.No.134/2025 is directed against the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed on I.A.No.II whereby the said application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Section 151 CPC for a direction to the petitioners-defendants to pay damages in a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- per month was partly allowed by the Trial Court, which directed the petitioners-defendants to pay a sum of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 Rs.3,70,000/- per month for use and occupation of the schedule property from the month of institution of the suit till disposal of the suit on merits. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners -defendants for ejectment / eviction, arrears of rent, damages, etc. The relief sought for by the respondents-plaintiffs against the petitioners- defendants are as under: “(a) Decree of Ejectment directing the Defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the Schedule Property forthwith, failing which the Plaintiffs shall be at liberty to secure the vacant possession of the Schedule Property through the process of the Court at the cost of the Defendants; (b) A Money Decree directing the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiffs a sum of Rs.44,27,940/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Only) towards the arrears of rent, damages and interest due to the Plaintiffs on account of the delay in payment of the rents and damages together with current and future interest thereon @24% per annum with effect from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of payment in entirety; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 (c) A Decree of Damages directing the Defendants to effect payment of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- [Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) per month or part thereof to the Plaintiffs for the use and occupation of the Schedule Property post the termination of tenancy as "tenant of sufferance" from the date of institution of the suit till the delivery of the vacant possession of the Schedule Property, failing which a Money Decree be passed for the payment of the same together with current and future interest thereon @24% per annum to be computed with effect from the respective due dates of the damages till the date of realisation; (d) Pass an Order for an enquiry for payment of additional mesne profits in an appropriate Final Decree Proceedings in terms of Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to be computed from the date of filing of this suit till the date of delivery of possession of the Schedule Property in excess Rs.4,50,000/- [Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand Only] per month or part thereof with current and future interest @24% per annum (e) For an Order as to the costs of the present proceedings, and (f) For such other Order/Orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit for grant under the circumstances of the case; in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE PROPERTY All the piece and parcel of the PG premises situated at Site No.5, House Khata No.2, situated at Kadubeesanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, previously Bengaluru South Taluk, now Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru presently under the administrative jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, measuring East to West: 30 Feet and North to South: 40 Feet, total 1200 Square Feet, together with construction thereon of Ground - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 Floor and Seven Upper Floors and rooms on terrace totalling to 38 rooms. Bounded on the: East By: 20 Feet Road West By; Private Property North by: Property No.24;and South By: Property No.4 4. The petitioners having entered appearance in the suit, filed the written statement and contested the suit, during the pendency of which, the respondents-plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking appropriate directions to the petitioners- defendants to pay damages for use and occupation of the suit schedule property. The said application having been opposed by the petitioners-defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under: “ORDERS ON I.A. NO.II Learned advocate for plaintiffs has filed an IA under Section 151 of CPC to direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff damages in a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-per month or part thereof for the use and occupation of the scheduled property with effect from the month of the institution of the suit which is equivalent to the last paid rent per month pending adjudication of the present suit on merits. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the said IA, Sree Kandi Nagireddy. Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiffs submitted that he is conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. He is competent to swear to this affidavit. Plaintiff No. 1 is his daughter whereas plaintiff No.2 is his son-in-law. He is personally aware of the facts of the case. The suit is filed against the defendants to evict them from the scheduled property along with subsequent prayers. 2.1: It is further submitted that plaintiff No. 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the scheduled property described in the application situated in Bengaluru South Taluk, now in Bengaluru East Taluk, presently under the jurisdiction of BBMP. measuring 1.200 square feet leased to the defendants for using the scheduled property for the purpose of running a paying guest business. Tenancy of the scheduled property is on month to month basis and consisting of 38 rooms in total. 2.2: It is further submitted that as on the date of termination of tenancy, rent was Rs.4,50,000/- per month. Defendants have stopped paying rent for the scheduled property as per clause 3 of rental agreement from July 2024. Rent for the month of July 2024 is paid in part. Plaintiff No.1 and 2 have suffered immense financial loss due to the default in payment of the monthly rent towards scheduled property. 2.3: It is further submitted that legal notice dated 24.09.2024 issued to the defendants calling upon them to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the shared property within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as provided under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The said notice was served upon the defendants on 24.09.2024. for that, an untenable reply dated 08.10.2024 got issued by the defendants. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 Defendants have failed to quit vacant and deliver vacant possession of the scheduled property to the plaintiffs within 15 days from the date of notice of termination of tenancy and hence defendants would be as "tenant-at-sufferance". 2.4: It is further submitted that defendants are liable to pay damages at a rate of Rs.4,50,000/- per month or part thereof which is prevailing market rate of rent for the similar property in the vicinity. Defendants are aware of the fact that the rent amount to be paid to the bankers of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 for the purpose of discharging their loan secured and payment of equitable monthly installments. Non-payment of EMI by the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 for housing finance secured by the plaintiff No.1 and No.2 with LIC Housing Finance Limited would cause severe financial distress to the plaintiffs. 2.5: It is further submitted that Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have to pay Rs.2,00,000/- per month for EMI and other financial liabilities out of the rental income from the shared property. Defendants are utilising the scheduled property without any payment of monthly rent to the rightful owners of the schedule property from past 11 months. Present suit is filed for recovery of arrears of rent as well as damages from the defendants who are tenant at sufferance. Hence the annexed application is filed in the event the application is allowed, no harm or loss would cause to the defendants. On the contrary, in the event the application is not allowed. plaintiffs will be put to great loss, hardship and suffering. 3. Statement of objections to the said application is filed by the defendants, stating that application filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable under the facts, circumstances and the defence - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 that has been raised by the defendants in the written statement. Hence the application is liable to be dismissed. 3.1: It is further submitted that averments made in the written statements may be considered as part of the objection. Contents of the documents produced by the defendant in support of the defence may also be taken into consideration against the application. 3.2: It is further submitted that calculation of the plaintiff of Rs.44,27,940/ as per paragraph 19 of the plaint is not correct because it is based on the alleged rent and damages and added interest at the rate of 24% per annum and by deducting the refundable security deposit shown to be Rs.20,50,000/-. 3.3: It is further submitted that defendants have admitted execution of unregistered rental agreement, but "duration clause" in the said rent agreement left blank. Rate of rent is shown as Rs.4,25,000/-. It does not disclose the number of floors, number of rooms for the purpose of running paying guest accommodation. PG purpose is not commercial in nature. Plaintiff has not produced documentary proof to show that the date of commencement of rent starts from August 2023. No documentary evidence is produced to show that the defendants are in due of rent from 23.08.2023 till 24.09.2024 and the rate of rent from August 2024 is Rs.4,50,000/- per month. 3.4: It is further submitted that defendants have approached the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division. Bangalore Rural in OS 2143/2024 seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiffs. In the said suit, it is contented that beneficiaries of rent were Mrs. Leela Soujanya and her husband K.V.Krishna reddy had received Rs.40,75,000 as advance rental for the scheduled - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 property. Receipt issued by K.V.Krishna Reddy to the said amount is produced. The said payment was made through demand draft. Plaintiffs have wrongly shown the statutory deposit as Rs. 20,50,000/- instead of Rs.25,00,000/- Rs.65,75,000/-was paid as rent in advance to K.V.Krishna Reddy. It is further submitted that plaintiffs are due of a sum of Rs.44,27,940 with interest and other dues including security deposits. In total. plaintiffs are liable to pay Rs.97,75,000 to the defendants. 3.5 It is further submitted that there are contradictions in the matter of receiving rent for the month of August 2024. For the said reasons, it is prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Learned advocate for the plaintiffs submitted arguments stating that plaintiffs are claiming damages at the rate of Rs.4,50,000/- from the defendants from the month of filing the suit. From July 2024, defendants have stopped payment of rent to the plaintiffs. No documents have been produced by the defendants to show their false claim made against the genuine claim of the plaintiffs. Alleged receipt for advance payment is not signed by the sister of the plaintiff. but it is signed by the husband of the sister of the plaintiffs and hence not valid. Defendants have not produced any documentary evidence for payment of advance rent, expenses made and payments made towards rent. Plaintiffs admitting Rs 25,00,000/- refundable security, deposit received from the defendants and not other payments as falsely alleged by the defendants in their written statement and objections. For arrears of 27.5 months rent at the rate of Rs.4,25,000/-. defendants are liable to pay Rs.1,20,087,500/- to the plaintiffs. 4.1: Learning advocate for the plaintiff produced citations In 2016 Part IX SCC Page 268, at para 19 of the said judgment, it is held that it is well settled position of law that in the absence of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 a registered instrument, the courts are not precluded from determining the factum of tenancy from the other evidence on record as well as the conduct of the parties. Relying upon the law laid down in the judgment that a lease of immobile property is defined under Section 105 of TP Act. A transfer of a right to enjoy a property in consideration of a price paid or promised to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions is the basic fabric for a valid lease. 5. Learned Advocate for the defendants submitted arguments stating that in view of already paying advance rentals to the sister of the plaintiff No. 1, defendants are not liable to make any payment towards rent per month to the plaintiffs. On the other hand, plaintiffs are liable to refund the advance rental amount and investments made by the defendants on the scheduled property. 6. Now the point arising for consideration is: "Whether the defendants are liable to pay damages in a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- per month for the use and occupation of the scheduled property with effect from the month of institution of suit equivalent to last paid rent per month pending adjudication of the present suit on merits?" 6.1: It is answered partly in the Affirmative for the following: REASONS 7. Undisputed facts emerging out of the pleadings pleaded by the plaintiffs in their plaint and denial averments pleaded by the defendants in their written statement are firstly - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 that there is existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenants between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule properties which is in possession of the defendants under the lease agreement executed by them. As per rental agreement dated 24.03.2023, defendants are liable to pay monthly rent of Rs.4,25,000/- for the first year, then Rs.4,50,000/- per month after one year of the execution of the rent agreement. Defendants are running the business of paying guest in the said suit schedule property and they are in the possession of the suit schedule property. 8. Disputed facts on the point of view of the plaintiffs side is that defendants are defaulters in payment of rent and they are in arrears of rent of huge amount for more than rupees one Crore. After adjusting the refundable advance amount and also Rent amount paid by the defendants, still they are liable to pay more than 45 lakhs to the plaintiffs. As per the rent agreement, rent payable per month Rs.4,50,000/- out of which except Rs.80,000/- per month, remaining amount to be paid to the plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiff No. 1. Therefore plaintiffs are entitled for Rs.3,70,000/- per month towards the rent of the suit schedule property from the defendants. 9. Defendants are disputing the very liability of payment of any monthly rents to the plaintiffs for the use of the suit schedule property in view of their claim made in their written statement. However, it is difficult to accept the contention raised by the defendants, as the same is still to be proved during trial. 10. Taking into consideration of undisputed facts and the factual aspect of the defendants in possession, running the business of paying guest in the suit schedule premises owned by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are entitled for the agreed amount of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 rent payable by the defendants per month under the rent agreement. The payment of rent by way of damages have to be subject to outcome of final result of the suit in view of set off claiming by the defendants. Answering the point for consideration partly in the affirmative, following order is made. ORDER Subject to the outcome of the final result of the suit. IA.No.2 filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed in part. Defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiffs Rs.3,70,000/- per month for the use and occupation of the schedule property from the month of institution of the suit till disposal of the suit on merits. Defendants shall deposit in the court the arrears amount from June 2025 till November 2025 within 31.12.2025. Defendants shall deposit in the court Rs.3,70,000/- per month for December 2025 and onwards till disposal of the suit shall be deposited on or before 5th of next month. Office is directed to deposit the amount so deposited by the defendants in an interest earning account in any nationalized bank for specific term with instruction for automatic renewal.” 5. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has taken into - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 account the material on record including the written statement filed by the petitioners and has arrived at the correct conclusion that the petitioners-defendants having not paid any sum of money to the respondents after institution of the suit, necessary directions would necessarily have to be issued to the petitioners-defendants to pay sum of Rs.3,70,000/- per month for use and occupation of the suit schedule property from the month of institution of the suit on merits till disposal of the suit on merits. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any material or place any document to establish that any sum of money was paid by the petitioners- defendants to the respondents- plaintiffs after institution of the suit. 6. Under these circumstances, upon reconsideration, re- evaluation and re-appreciation of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present petition in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2452 WP No. 39811 of 2025 Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62