Karnataka High Court
Smt D M Latha vs H M Rudrakumar on 12 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20216
W.P. No.14417/2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.14417/2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. D.M. LATHA
W/O G.S. RAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NO.9, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA
IST CROSS, RAJESHWARINAGAR
LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560058.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by RUPA V (BY SRI. G.K. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADV.,)
Location: High AND:
Court of
karnataka
1. H.M. RUDRAKUMAR
S/O D. MAHESWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
BANASHANKARI NILAYA
2ND MAIN, GANDHINAGARA
BANGALORE-560009.
2. SMT. GOWRI @ GOWRAMMA
W/O H.M. RUDRAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.5, SRI. KALESHWARA NILAYA
IST FLOOR, 12TH CROSS, NEAR NATIONAL
PUBLIC SCHOOL, SHIVAPURA
NELAGANDARANAHALLI, BANGALORE-73.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADV., FOR R1 [ABSENT]
SMT. HARINI, ADV., FOR
SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED XTH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH.26) IN OS NO.3526/2016 ON IA NO.6
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20216
W.P. No.14417/2020
HC-KAR
DATED 04.03.2020 BY REJECTED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 16 READ
WITH 151 OF THE CPC & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Set aside the order passed by the Learned Xth
Additional City Civil Sessions Judge at
Bangalore.(CCH.26) in O.S.No.3526/2016 on
I.A.No.6 Dated 04.03.2020 by rejected under
Order VI Rule 16 read with 151 of the CPC.
Annexure-A. I.A.No.6 Filed by the petitioner
and grant such other relief in the interest of
justice and equity."
2. Heard.
3. Sri.G.K.Shiva Prakash, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed
O.S.No.3526/2016 before the X Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short, 'the trial Court')
against the respondents-defendants seeking the judgment and
decree against the respondents to vacate and handover the
vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the
petitioner and further prayer to pay the arrears of rent of
Rs.90,000/- and damages of Rs.15,000/- from the date of suit
NC: 2025:KHC:20216
HC-KAR
till they vacate and handover the vacant possession. It is
submitted that the respondents have filed a written statement
denying the claim of the petitioner. In the said suit, petitioner
filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 r/w Section 151 of
CPC seeking prayer to strike out the defence set out by the
respondents-defendants on account of their failure to pay rent
and damages. However, the trial Court, without appreciating
the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule
property and the respondents being the tenants, have not paid
the rent from the inception, ought to have allowed the said
application by striking out the defence available to them. It is
also submitted that respondent Nos.1 & 2 are the husband and
wife and there appears to be some matrimonial dispute and in
the garb of said dispute, the respondent No.2 is squatting over
the property without paying the rents. However, the trial Court
has failed to appreciate these aspects and rejected the
applications. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting
aside the impugned order by striking out the defence of the
respondents.
4. Per contra, Smt.Harini, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Sri.R.B.Sadashivappa, learned counsel for the
NC: 2025:KHC:20216
HC-KAR
respondent No.2 supports the impugned order of the trial Court
and submits that the suit filed by the petitioner against the
respondents is a collusive suit, the petitioner is none other than
the sister of respondent No.1 and when the matrimonial dispute
arose between the respondents, the respondent No.1 has
executed the gift deed in favour of the petitioner to deprive the
shelter and right of respondent No.2 and the said gift deed was
under challenge before the suit, which came to be dismissed
and now the appeal is pending and the interim order is
operating. She further adds that the trial Court has clearly
recorded the finding that the suit is a collusive suit, hence,
there cannot be any striking of defence for non payment of
rents as there is no jural relationship established between the
petitioner and respondents in the suit. Hence, she seeks to
dismiss the petition.
5. I have heard the arguments of both side and
meticulously perused the material available on record.
6. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.3526/2016 seeking
the relief of handing over vacant possession of the suit
schedule property, arrears of rent and damages against the
NC: 2025:KHC:20216
HC-KAR
respondents. The suit is filed on the premise that the petitioner
is the owner of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the said
ownership was acquired based on the gift deed dated
19.07.2013 executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the
petitioner. The averments made in the plaint indicate that the
petitioner and respondent No.1 entered into a rental agreement
dated 01.02.2015 initially for a period of eleven (11) months
and claimed that the same was renewed; however, no rents
have been paid from inception. The pleading and material on
record clearly indicates that there is a matrimonial dispute
between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, who are the
husband and wife, and the trial Court has rightly recorded
prima-facie finding that to overcome the said dispute, the gift
deed is executed in favour of the petitioner. There is no doubt
that the aforesaid finding is only a prima-facie finding to decide
the dispute between the parties as the validity of the gift deed
is the subject matter in the pending appeal before this Court,
hence, it is not necessary to record any finding with regard to
execution of the gift deed by respondent No.1 in favour of the
petitioner. Order VI Rule 16 of CPC provides for striking out the
pleading, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, order
NC: 2025:KHC:20216
HC-KAR
to strike out or amend any matter in pleading under three
circumstances referred in Order VI Rule 16 of CPC. Non
payment of rent, in the absence of any specific direction from
the jurisdictional Court to pay rent cannot be a ground to strike
out the defence as claimed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the
issue with regard to jural relationship and payment of rent is
seriously disputed by respondent No.2 herein. When things
stood thus, the petitioner cannot seek for striking out the
defence. The trial Court, considering the law on the point, has
recorded the clear finding that the application is devoid of
merits and dismissed. I do not find any reason or error in the
impugned order of the trial Court calling for interference in this
petition. For the aforementioned reasons, petition is devoid of
merits, accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
