Suneel Sivarama Pillai Vs Smt Sahija J

SUNEEL SIVARAMA PILLAI S/O. LATE SHRI NEELAKANDAN SIVARAMA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.43, ANNAYAPPA GARDEN, 9^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560075

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI BHARGAVA D BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH 1. SMT. SAHIJA J COURT OF W/O LATE SHRI JAYARAJ, KARNATAKA MAJOR, R/O NO.P-135, 8^TH MAIN, LIC COLONY, HAL III STAGE, JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560075

¶13

SHRI ASHIN J, S/O LATE SHRI JAYARAJ, AGED MAJOR, R/O NO.P-135, 8^TH MAIN, LIC COLONY,

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

HAL III STAGE, JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560075

¶18

MASTER ADIK J, S/O. LATE SHRI JAYARAJ, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SAHIJA V J, R/O NO. P-135, 8^TH MAIN, LIC COLONY, HAL III STAGE, JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560075

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DATED 01.07.2025)

¶21

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999 READ WITH SECTION 115 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. XII IN HRC.NO.33/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wherein he would vehemently contend that the trial court committed an error in dismissing the application filed under Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act (for short ‘the Rent Act’) and brought to notice of this Court the reason assigned by the trial court while rejecting the said application in paragraphs 14 and 15 wherein the trial court comes to the conclusion that when the matter is set down for evidence of the wife and children of the original tenant, it is neither fit nor proper nor feasible to direct them to pay the arrears of rent from August 2018 to November 2022. The counsel also brought to notice of this court that there is a clear admission on the part of original tenant who had filed the statement of objection wherein in paragraph 9 of the objection, he has categorically stated that he was a tenant under one Kemparaj and thereafter tenancy was attorned to V P Raghavan and the respondent has paid rents to the said V P Raghavan till March 2019

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

and only in the month of April 2019, rent sent through money order has been refused by the said V P Raghavan. Such being the exact position, question of the petitioner traversing otherwise does not arise at all. The counsel would contend that this admission shows that attornment of tenancy is in respect of fictitious person - Raghavan and also very clear that rent was refused by him in the month of April 2019 and nothing is placed on record for having paid the rent even to the fictitious person. When such being the case, the trial court ought not to have rejected the application filed under Section 45 of the Rent Act.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of material on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this court is:

¶34

Whether the trial court committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Section 45 of the Rent Act?

¶35

What order?

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Point no.1:

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the petition is filed against the original tenant - Jayaraj who passed away during the pendency of the petition and his legal heirs were brought on record. It is also not in dispute that when the case is set down for recording evidence of the legal heirs of original tenant, an application was filed praying to direct the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/- towards damages from August 2018 to November 2022. The counsel also brought to notice of this court that the property was purchased by the petitioner in the month of July 2018 and thereafter rent was not paid. The counsel brought to notice of this court paragraph 9 of the statement of objections filed by the original owner wherein he admits that he was a tenant under one Kemparaj and the counsel submits that this petitioner has purchased the property from the said

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Kemparaj. The counsel would vehemently contend that a false defence was set out in paragraph 9 of the statement of objections that tenancy was attorned in favour of Raghavan and also categorically admitted that the said Raghavan refused to receive the rent from April 2019. When such being the case, the trial court fails to take note of the very admission on the part of the original owner made in his objections and the trial court also fails to take note of the very provision of Section 45 of the Rent Act.

¶45

Once, the court noticed that rents are not paid, ought to have invoked Section 45 of the Rent Act but the trial court instead of invoking the provision of Section 45 of the Rent Act, reason is given that when case is set down for recording the evidence of legal heirs of deceased original tenant, an application is filed but the provision does not say that the original owner cannot file an application when the case is set down for evidence. Hence, the reasoning given by the trial court is erroneous. Accordingly, I answer the above point as affirmative.

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:23904 HRRP No. 9 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Point No.2:

¶50

In view of discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The petition is allowed.

¶53

Consequently, the order dated 06.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.XII filed under Section 45 of the Rent Act in HRC No.33/2019 by the trial court is set aside and the said application is allowed directing the respondents to deposit the rent as sought in the application within a period of one month from today before the court. If rents are not deposited within one month, the trial court is directed to proceed in accordance with Section 45 of the Rent Act.

¶54

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶55

SN

Suneel Sivarama Pillai v. Smt Sahija J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneel Sivarama Pillai v. Smt Sahija J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. N. Hemavathi Vs Nanjundappa

Sri v Chandrashekaraiah Vs Sri Shivarudraiah

Sri Basavaraju Vs Sri Kumar

Sri K Srinivasa Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri Govindappa Vs Narasimhappa

Sri. K S Sudhakara Vs Sri. D. Ajith Kalkuli