Sri. A.M Sudhakar (Huf) vs M/S Magnus Health Care And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4585 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                      NC: 2023:KHC:24958
                                                         CRP No. 402 of 2023




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                                             BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                           CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.402 OF 2023 (IO)

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI A.M SUDHAKAR (HUF),
                   AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
                   S/O LATE A.L. MUNI REDDY,
                   RESIDING AT NO.67,
                   15TH CROSS, 14TH 'B' MAIN,
                   4TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT,
                   BENGALURU 560 102.
                   REPTD BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
                   SRI A.M. SURESH REDDY,
                   S/O LATE A.L. MUNI REDDY,
                   AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
                   RESIDING AT NO.189, 19TH CROSS,
                   27TH MAIN, 2ND SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT,
                   BENGALURU 560 102.
Digitally signed
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH                   (BY SRI SANJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   AND:

                   1.   M/S MAGNUS HEALTH CARE AND
                        RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,
                        A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
                        COMPANY'S ACT,
                        HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.81,
                        S.T BED, 4TH BLOCK,
                        KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.
                        REP BY ITS DIRECTORS.

                   2.   DR. R.C. PARINITHA,
                        MAJOR IN AGE,
                        D/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
                           -2-
                                 NC: 2023:KHC:24958
                                    CRP No. 402 of 2023




     DIRECTOR OF RESPONDENT NO.1,
     RESIDING AT NO.294,
     39TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN,
     5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA,
     BENGALURU 560 041.

3.   DR. D. SHIVANAND,
     MAJOR IN AGE,
     S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
     DIRECTOR OF RESPNDENT NO.1,
     RESIDING AT NO.121,
     3RD STAGE, NHCS LAYOUT,
     4TH BLOCK BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
     BENGALURU 560 079.

4.   DR. H.M. PRASANNA,
     MAJOR IN AGE,
     S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
     DIRECTOR OF RESPONDENT NO.1,
     RESIDING AT NO.877,
     PRISTINE HOSPITAL, MODI HOSPITAL ROAD,
     WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
     2ND STAGE EXTENSION,
     BENGALURU 560086.

5.   SRI ANUP NAGANNA,
     MAJOR IN AGE,
     S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
     DIRECTOR OF DEFENDANT NO.1,
     RESIDING AT C/O NO.121,
     3RD STAGE, NHCS LAYOUT,
     4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
     BENGALURU 560 079.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.11
IN OS NO.3028/2021 ON THE FILE OF XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY DISMISSING
THE IA NO.11 FILED UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6 OF CPC, FOR
RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSON THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -3-
                                     NC: 2023:KHC:24958
                                          CRP No. 402 of 2023




                           ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated

08.06.2023, passed on I.A.No.11, in O.S.No.3028/2011, on

the file of XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru City, dismissing I.A.No.11 filed under Order 12

Rule 6 of CPC.

3. The plaintiff's main contention before the Trial

Court is that there was a lease agreement for a period of

five years and the same commences from 01.01.2018 and

the same is valid till 31.12.2022 and the lease expires due

to efflux of time on 31.12.2022. The defendants in their

written statement admitted the ownership of the plaintiff

and also expiry of lease on 31.12.2022. Thus, prayed to

pass the judgment by acting under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC

as the defendants unambiguously admitted the claim of the

suit.

NC: 2023:KHC:24958 CRP No. 402 of 2023

4. The defendants filed the objections opposing the

application on the ground that the plaintiff with an intent to

extort money filed this false application and trying to

manipulate on this Court. The plaintiff has not approached

this Court with clean hands and the relief sought by the

plaintiff in the suit cannot be granted under the interim

application on the ground that, firstly at the inception of

the lease the plaintiff represented himself as an absolute

owner, but in his suit he has filed the suit as if the suit

property is an HUF property. If so HUF is a separate legal

entity, on that ground alone it can be inferred that the suit

property is not the absolute property of the plaintiff. Thus,

the plaintiff is required to prove his ownership over the

leased premises. Secondly, as per the lease deed dated

19.04.2018, which commences from 01.01.2018, which is

valid for five years, and the same is renewable in terms of

mutual understanding between the parties. But the suit is

filed even prior to expiry of the lease period. Thirdly, since

from the date of inception of lease in the year 2007, there

was no allegation of non-payment or short payment of

NC: 2023:KHC:24958 CRP No. 402 of 2023

rent. What made the defendants to pay the reduced rent

was due to Covid-19. During the covid pandemic, business

of the defendants were hit largely, still the defendants

company is recovering from the said loss. Moreover, the

defendants had invested huge money and erected huge

medical laboratory equipments. Moreover, the defendants

had gained the reputation by way of service and they need

to find reasonable place to shift their machineries. Thus,

they need time for another nine months and in this matter

there are triable issue with regard to orally agreed reduced

rent and also extension of time, termination of lease was

proper or not and all these aspects has to be considered by

the Trial Court.

5. Having considered the contention of the plaintiff

and the defendants in the objection statement, the Trial

Court rejected the application on the ground that the issue

involved between the parties requires trial. Though it is

admitted that there was an agreement of lease for a period

of five years, whether the same was extendable and the

issue between the parties is with regard to reduced rent,

NC: 2023:KHC:24958 CRP No. 402 of 2023

payment of rent and arrears of rent and the same has to be

considered and hence comes to the conclusion that in their

written statement the defendants have not at all admitted

all the disputes raised by the plaintiff and hence the same

cannot be invoked under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC and hence

this revision petition is filed before this Court.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner is that the defendants have not denied the

very execution of the lease agreement and the same

commences from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2022 and due to

efflux of time, the said period has expired. When such

being the case, when they have not disputed the lease

agreement, ought to have invoked Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC

and hence the Trial Court has committed an error.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the averments made in the plaint and

written statement, it is not in dispute that an agreement

was entered into between the parties commencing from

01.01.2018 to 31.12.2022 and admittedly the suit is also

filed prior to completion of the said period and also while

NC: 2023:KHC:24958 CRP No. 402 of 2023

seeking the relief of eviction, relief is also sought for

arrears of rent, GST, interest, damages and also for an

amount of Rs.1,01,338/- towards interest and penalty paid

by the plaintiff towards late payment of TDS. The prayer

is with regard to directing the defendants to deliver the

vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and

also seeking arrears of rent of Rs.34,40,384/-, GST to an

amount of Rs.6,19,265/-, interest of Rs.1,01,338/- and

directing the defendants to pay an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- per month as damages for use and

occupation of premises. The suit is filed for ejection of the

tenant and the issue involved between the parties is also

with regard to whether there was a legal termination and

the disputed questions are raised before the Court. No

doubt, there was an agreement between the parties for a

period of five years and when the relief is sought to quit

and deliver the vacant possession and other grounds are

also urged and the same are disputed facts and when there

is no specific admission by the defendants with regard to

the other contention and the same is noted by the Trial

NC: 2023:KHC:24958 CRP No. 402 of 2023

Court while passing the order, the disputed issue involved

between the parties also to be decided by the Trial Court

only after commencement of trial while considering the

matter on merits including legal termination. On the

ground that the agreed term is for a period of five years,

whether the petitioner is entitled for an order of eviction is

also to be considered by the Trial Court. Based on that

document, which is an admitted document, the Court

cannot invoke Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC when the disputed

facts are involved in the matter. Hence, I do not find any

error in the order passed by the Trial Court to invoke Order

12 Rule 6 of CPC.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed

to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD