Karnataka High Court
Jasti Kishore vs Harilal Mohanlal Pipaliya on 18 August, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31738
WP No. 22421 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 22421 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
JASTI KISHORE
S/O NAGESHWARA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT EAST GANGAVARAM TALLUR,
PRAKASAM, ANDRA PRADESH - 523 264
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
HARILAL MOHANLAL PIPALIYA
ALSO KNOWN AS HARILAL MOHANLAL MISTRI,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT SRI G KRUPA, 14TH MAIN,
Digitally signed 19TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT,
by NAGAVENI BANGALORE - 560 102
Location: High
Court of ...RESPONDENT/CAVEATOR
Karnataka (BY SRI. S. GURU PRASANNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE AND QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.06.2024 PASSED BY THE
LXXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-83) AT
COMMERCIAL COURT BANGALORE IN COM. OS NO. 194/2023
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:31738
WP No. 22421 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an
order of the concerned Court in Commercial O.S.No.194/2023,
which directs deposit of admitted rent from the date of filing of
the suit i.e., 06.02.2023 till 29.02.2024, which would amount
to Rs.16,38,000/- and continue to deposit the rent per month.
2. Heard Sri. Shravan S. Lokre, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. S. Guru Prasanna, learned
counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent and have
perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to project
that there is dispute with regard to the rent. If the amount is
reduced, he is ready and willing to pay.
4. The concerned Court on the application passes the
following order:
"7. Point No. 1: Perused the records. The plaintiff filed
this application at the stage of Plaintiff evidence. This suit
NC: 2025:KHC:31738
HC-KAR
is filed for ejectment and Plaintiff claimed the relief of
arrears of rent of Rs. 62,25,036/- (as due on 31.08.2022)
and till filing of the suit totally amounting to Rs.
90,66,548/- and mense profits/damages at the rate of Rs.
2,00,000/- per month from 01.09.2022 till 31.01.2023
along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum
amounting to Rs. 45,000/- totally amounting to Rs.
10,45,000/- and also prays that the damages at the rate
of Rs. 10,00,000/- per month from the date of the decree
till the date of handing over the physical possession of the
suit schedule property.
8. In the written statement as well as objection the
Defendant has denied the claim of the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- per month from
01.09.2022 till 31.01.2023 along the interest at the rate
of 18% per annum. Now the plaintiff has come with this
application and sought direction to Defendant deposit
rate of rent of Rs.1,26,000/- per month from the date of
filing of the suit
9. According, to the Plaintiff that the lease agreement
dated 12.07.2017 expired on 12.07.2019. The renewed
lease period on 01.08.2019 expired on 31.07.2021 and he
has specifically stated that the Defendant has paid a sum
of Rs. 10 lakh by way of cheque as security deposit which
was carried forward for the subsequent renewal. The
Defendant also agreed that in the event of non-payment
of rent for more than three months the Plaintiff holds the
right to deduct the total cumulative outstanding/unpaid
rent amount adding 12% interest on total outstanding
from the security deposit. Since the defendant has
committed breach of his agreement, became chronic
defaulter in payment of rent etc., the security amount of
Rs. 10,00,000/-so deposited is forfieted as agreed
between the parties. Further, the Defendant is continued
to be is possession of the schedule property without or
rights of legal justification. The tenancy is already
terminated. Hence, the Defendant is holding the schedule
property as a 'Trespasser'.
10. The Plaintiff has relied upon a decision in Kalai Selvan
vs. J. Vishnkumar in WP No. 5639 of 2023 wherein
Hon'ble High court held that
NC: 2025:KHC:31738
HC-KAR
"As already noted supra, as per the law laid
down by Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in the
case of Bangalore Builders (P) Limited vs. P.P.
Anthony, reported at ILR 1978 Kar 782, the
court has inherent powers during the pendency
of ejectment suit to direct the tenant to pay to
the landlord, the admitted rate of rent.
11. In the present case, on perusal of averments of the
written statement, it discloses that the Plaintiff had
sought for payment of rental in cash and in view of the
same the lease agreement and its terms were complied
and the rents were paid up to date. Because of this
reason that the Plaintiff agreed and without any
objections or claims thereof executed the agreement of
lease deed 01-09-2019.
12. Further, in Statement of Admissions and Denials, the
Defendant has agrred to rental agreement from
12.07.2017 and 01.08.2019.It is also admitted that till
today the Defendant is in possession of schedule
property. Under these circumstances, the Defendant is
liable to pay amount for the occupation of suit schedule
property. However, the rate of rent of damages per
month after filing of this suit is to be considered only after
full fledged trial.
13. The Defendant being a tenant cannot squat over the
property without paying the rent and therefore,
notwithstanding the fact that, mesne profits/damages at
the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month is claimed in the
suit, subject to determination of the rate of mense profits
in the judgment at the time of disposal of the suit, during
the pendency of the suit, the Defendant should be pay, at
least, the admitted rate of rent to the Plaintiff which shall
the be adjusted towards the damages which plaintiff is
held to be entitled to, at the time of judgment. Hence, it
is necessary to direct the Defendant to pay Rs. 1,26,000/-
реr month from the date of filing of the suit till disposal of
the suit. Accordingly, I answer this point in " Affirmative".
NC: 2025:KHC:31738
HC-KAR
14. Point No.2: Therefore, I proceed to pass the
following
ORDER
The I.A. No.VIII filed by the Plaintiff under
Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed.
Consequently, Defendant is directed to deposit sum
of Rs. 1,26,000/- per month from the date of suit
from 06.02.2023 to till 29.02.2024 of Rs.
16,38,000/- and continue to deposit of Rs.
1,26,000/- per month. Hence, forth with shall fall
due on 10th of every succeeding month till disposal
of the present suit."
5. The concerned Court only directs deposit of
admitted rent from the date of suit till 29.02.2024, not the
disputed rent.
6. In that light, there is no warrant for this Court to
interfere with the order so passed in exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Finding no perversity in the order, the petition
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
SJK
