[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
K P Jayanthi Prasad vs Chethan K S on 17 February, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9781
WP No. 32448 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 32448 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
K.P. JAYANTHI PRASAD
WIFE OF K.P. SRINIVAS PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.13 (OLD NO.306),
OLD MARKET ROAD, V.V. PURAM
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MD. ABRAR S, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MOHAN KUMAR H.G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHETHAN K S
SON OF LATE SHIVAKUMAR K.S.
Digitally signed
by AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SHARADAVANI B
Location: High RESIDENTS OF NO.2,
Court of
Karnataka OLD MARKET ROAD,
SAJJAN RAO'S CIRCLE, V.V. PURAM,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004
2. SWATHI K.S
DAUGHTER OF LATE SHIVAKUMAR K.S,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF NO.2,
OLD MARKET ROAD,
SAJJAN RAO'S CIRCLE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9781
WP No. 32448 of 2024
HC-KAR
V.V. PURAM, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560004
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK WAHLE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 07/11/2024 IN IA NO. 3/2024 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER / DEFENDANT SEEKING DIRECTION TO THE
PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT TO PAY THE BALANCE RENT
ARREARS TO THE PETITIONER / DEFENDANT IN OS NO.
5536/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XLI ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-42 AT BANGALORE
VIDE ANN-G AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE SAME.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.5536/23 is
directed against the interim order dated 07.11.2024
whereby the application I.A.No. 3/2024 filed by the
petitioner under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure,
NC: 2026:KHC:9781
HC-KAR
1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short) was
rejected by the trial Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
respondents and perused the records.
3. A perusal of the material on record would
indicate that the respondent - tenant instituted the
aforesaid suit against the petitioner - landlord for
permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the
suit schedule immovable property. In the plaint itself, the
respondent - tenant specifically contended that she was
paying rent to the petitioner - landlord in a sum of
₹1,32,087/- prior to filing of the suit and since the
petitioner attempted to interfere with the respondent's
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property,
the respondent instituted the aforesaid suit against the
petitioner - defendant.
4. The petitioner - defendant filed the written
statement and are contesting the suit and in addition
NC: 2026:KHC:9781
HC-KAR
thereto, they filed the instant application I.A.No.3/2024
for direction to the respondent - plaintiff/tenant to deposit
the arrears of rent in a sum of ₹62,00,000/- before the
trial Court. The said application having been opposed by
the respondent, the trial Court proceeded to pass the
impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by
which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the
present petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate
that the sole ground on which the trial Court has rejected
the application filed by the petitioner is, by coming to the
conclusion that the petitioner had not sought for a counter
claim for eviction/ejectment or for arrears of rent and as
such in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the
respondent - tenant against the petitioner - landlord, and
as such an application is not maintainable in law. In my
considered opinion, the trial Court failed to consider and
appreciate the provisions contained in Section 108 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which casts an obligation
NC: 2026:KHC:9781
HC-KAR
upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent and continue to pay
the same during the pendency of the suit, notwithstanding
the fact that the petitioner had not sought for a counter
claim for ejectment or for arrears of rent. At any rate,
equity demands that the respondent should not be allowed
to continue to remain in occupation of the suit schedule
property without payment of rent which are undisputedly
due by her to the petitioner - landlord, as can be seen
from the plaint averments themselves. Under these
circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside
the impugned order and allow the application
I.A.No.3/2024 by issuing certain directions.
6. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i. Petition is hereby allowed.
ii. Impugned order dated 07.11.2024 is
hereby set aside.
iii. Application I.A.No. 3/2024 filed by the
petitioner is partly allowed by directing the
respondent - plaintiff to pay rent/arrears
NC: 2026:KHC:9781
HC-KAR
of rent to the petitioner - defendant @
Rs.1,32,087/- from 29.08.2023 till
28.02.2026 and pay the entire
accumulated arrears of rent and to
continue to pay the monthly rent payable
to the petitioner as and when it falls due
till disposal of the suit.
iv. It is further directed that in the event the
respondent does not pay the arrears of
rent from 29.08.2023 to 28.02.2026
and/or does not continue to pay the
monthly rent as and when it falls due,
liberty is reserved in favour of the
petitioner to file necessary/appropriate
applications before the trial Court in this
regard.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BVK
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9
