- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16067 RFA No. 576 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 576 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAMMED SAFIULLA SON OF MOHAMMED PARU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 16, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 021, REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER- MOHAMMED ZAHEER PASHA AT M/S. N Z STEEL CORPORATION NO.3/1 NEW BAMBOO BAZAAR 2ND CROSS, NR ROAD, BENGALURU 560002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KISHORE S.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. OMAR SHARIFF, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. G. SUJATHA, WIFE OF GONA RAVINDRA BABU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 2. SRI. GONA RAVINDRA BABU, SON OF LATE G. SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 137, 5TH CROSS, SOMESWARAPURA, HALASURU, BENGALURU - 560 008. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16067 RFA No. 576 of 2026 (BY SRI.MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATORS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.02.2026 PASSED IN O.S NO.1318/2021 ON THE FILE OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT, POSSESSION, MESNE PROFITS AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2026 passed by the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-40), Bengaluru City, in O.S No.1318/2021. 2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellant herein was the defendant in the suit while the respondents herein were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16067 RFA No. 576 of 2026 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S No.1318/2021 to evict the defendant from the suit schedule property. They claimed that the defendant was inducted into the suit property in terms of a lease agreement dated 02.06.2017 on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. It is stated that the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiffs towards security deposit. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant requested them to return a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was accordingly paid to him in terms of a cheque bearing No.000840 dated 02.06.2017. Plaintiffs claimed that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was deducted towards arrears of rent and therefore, the security deposit which was lying with them was only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was not punctual in the payment of rent and that as of December 2020, he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,58,000/- towards rent. They contended that a sum of Rs.3,58,000/- was thereafter deducted out of the security deposit and hence, the security deposit stood reduced to a sum of Rs.6,42,000/-. As the defendant continued to neglect to pay the arrears of rent, the plaintiffs were constrained to cause a notice of termination of tenancy on 21.01.2021. However, the notice issued to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16067 RFA No. 576 of 2026 defendant was not claimed. Thereafter, a notice issued to the residence of the defendant was not served while the notice issued to his business premises was served and he replied in terms of a notice dated 01.02.2021. He admitted the tenancy but denied his liability to pay the arrears of rent. The plaintiffs were therefore advised to seek for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property and hence, they filed O.S No. 1318/2021. 4. The defendant contested the suit and denied the averments of the plaint in general. 5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court framed the following points for consideration: "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the owners of the plaint schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, as per the agreement of lease plaint schedule property was rented to defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, the agreement of lease was terminated by issuing notice as per law? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16067 RFA No. 576 of 2026 4. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, enquiry is necessary pertaining to past and present mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC ? 5. What order and decree?" 6. In support of the plaintiffs' case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 and he marked Exhibits P1 to P4. The defendant did not lead any evidence. 7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs had proved that the defendant was inducted into the suit schedule property as a tenant and that the plaintiffs had lawfully terminated the lease and consequently, in terms of the judgment dated 10.02.2026, decreed the suit and directed the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within one month from the date of the said judgment. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant is before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs / respondents has filed a memo dated 18.03.2026 stating that in terms of the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16067 RFA No. 576 of 2026 No.15056/2025, the defendant / appellant was directed to deposit the admitted arrears of rent i.e. Rs.4,40,000/- before the Trial Court within the time stipulated therein. However, the defendant has not complied with the said order. Subsequently, the Trial Court has passed an order dated 21.01.2026 on I.A. No.11 in O.S No.1318/2021 striking off the entire defence of the defendant in the light of his willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.15056/2025. 10. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant was not given adequate opportunity to contest the suit. He, therefore, prays that an opportunity be granted to the defendant to contest the suit. He also submits that steps were taken by the defendant to seek expunction of certain statements made by the defendant in his written statement and the same is also not considered. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is executed today in Ex. No.492/2026 pending before the Court of the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Executing Court') and that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16067 RFA No. 576 of 2026 possession of the suit schedule property is recovered by the plaintiffs from the defendant. He also submits that the tenancy is admitted and the termination of the tenancy is also admitted by the defendant and the Trial Court has directed an inquiry into mesne profits and hence, there is no merit in the case of the defendant. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendant and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 13. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and whether any interference by this Court is warranted?" 14. It appears from a reply notice dated 01.02.2021 to the notice of termination dated 21.01.2021 that the defendant had specifically admitted that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property and that he was a tenant under them. He also admitted the execution of a lease agreement dated 02.06.2017. The Trial Court held that the termination of tenancy was just - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16067 RFA No. 576 of 2026 and proper and that the defendant had no right to continue in the suit schedule property. Now that the defendant is already evicted from the suit schedule property pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the Executing Court in Ex. No.492/2026, no purpose would be served in keeping this appeal alive. Consequently, the point for consideration framed by this Court is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. 15. In view of disposal of this appeal, I.A No.1/2026 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA