Abdul Azeez Vs Mrs Sesi

MR. VENKATESH S/O LATE PARAMESHWARA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT C/O GIRIJA NAGARAJ SHIVAKRIPA HOUSE RAMANAGARA ROAD MANCHURU, SRINIVASNAGARA SURATHKAL, MANGALORE - 575 001.

¶27

MRS. NARSI HENGSU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶28

MR. HARISHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶29

MR. KUSHALA AGED 26 YEARS.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:39920 WP No. 18414 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

MS. REKHA AGED 24 YEARS.

¶34

MR. VISHWANATHA AGED 22 YEARS.

¶35

RES. NO.9 IS THE WIDOW AND Nos. 9 TO 11 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE SHEENA @ SHENA MAISTRY ALL ARE R/AT ALNGARU DARKAS MUNDKUR VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK - 575 001.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(V/O/D 03.06.2025, NOTICE TO R-3 TO R-5, R-7 & R-8 IS D/W; V/O/D 25.07.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-6 & R-11 IS H/S; R-1, R-2, R-9, R-10, R-12 & R-13 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶38

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 27.02.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.225 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MANGALORE D.K. AS PER ANNX-A.

¶39

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B GROUP', THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.02.2018 passed in O.S.No.225/2016 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge & CJM, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.

¶42

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondents who are served in the matter have remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39920 WP No. 18414 of 2018

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Respondents 1 & 2 herein had filed O.S.No.225/2016 before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & CJM, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, seeking for a decree of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and also for the consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 & 6 from removing and demolishing the structures in the suit schedule property. In the said suit, IA No.7 was filed by the plaintiff to implead the petitioner herein as supplemental defendant to the suit and IA No.8 was filed under Section 151 CPC with a prayer to direct the petitioner herein to deposit monthly rentals at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per month before the court during the pendency of the suit. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the suit, original defendant no.6 had leased suit schedule 'B' property in favour of the petitioner and another and defendant no.6 was receiving a monthly rental of Rs.80,000/- per month and it is under these circumstances, IA Nos.7 & 8 were filed to implead the tenant as supplemental defendants to the suit and also to direct them to deposit the rentals of the suit schedule 'B' property before the Trial Court.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39920 WP No. 18414 of 2018

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned, has allowed IA No.8 and has directed the petitioner to deposit monthly rental at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month before the Trial Court during the pendency of the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court

¶49

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the objections filed to IA Nos.7 & 8, the petitioner has produced the lease agreement executed in his favour by original defendant no.6 - Sri Venkatesh. As per the terms of the said lease deed, the period of lease is for 10 years and the monthly rent payable is Rs.10,000/- which is required to be enhanced every year by Rs.3,000/- per month.

¶50

From the perusal of the averments found in the affidavit filed in support of IA No.8, it is found that the plaintiffs have not produced any document to show that the proposed

¶51

defendant was paying monthly rentals at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per month to defendant no.6. In the affidavit filed in support of IA No.8, it is only stated that defendant no.6 has leased Schedule 'B' property to the proposed defendant and the

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39920 WP No. 18414 of 2018

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

rentals at the rate of Rs.80,000/-, which the tenant is paying to defendant no.6 is required to be deposited before the Trial Court.

¶55

In the objection statement filed to IA No.8, the petitioner has specifically pleaded about execution of lease agreement by defendant no.6 in his favour which is dated 06.10.2016. Copy of the said lease agreement is produced at Annexure-H to the writ petition. Perusal of the terms of the said lease agreement would go to show that lease is for a period of 10 years and monthly rent payable is Rs.10,000/- per month and the rent is required to be enhanced by Rs.3,000/- per month every year.

¶56

The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter, and without any basis, has held that the petitioner is liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month and accordingly has directed him to deposit rentals at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month before the Trial Court. In my considered view, the Trial Court has erred in directing the petitioner to deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month, and on the other hand, the Trial Court ought to have directed the petitioner to deposit the rentals before the Trial Court from the

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:39920 WP No. 18414 of 2018

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

date of order at the rate as provided under the lease agreement dated 06.10.2016. Under the circumstances, the following order:

¶61

The writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 27.02.2018 passed on IA No.8 in O.S.No.225/2016 by the Principal Civil Judge & CJM, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, directing the petitioner to deposit monthly rental at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month is set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit monthly rent before the Trial Court from the date of the order passed on IA No.8 at the rate as mentioned in the lease agreement dated 06.10.2016 taking into consideration the enhancement of monthly rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month every year. The petitioner is granted eight weeks time to pay the arrears of rentals, if any, in terms of the orders passed by this Court.

¶62

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶63

KK

Abdul Azeez v. Mrs Sesi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Azeez v. Mrs Sesi

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

Sri K a Ravishankar Vs Smt T Sunitha

Smt. Nutan Ajith Kumar Vs Regional Social Educational

M/S Thirumala Blue Metals Vs M/S Vishwas Concrete Products Private Limited

Mr Raghavendra N Vs Mr Vishnuvardan

Manjunath C Vs Smt Nayana C

Sri Syed Ibrahim Sab Vs Sri Syed Mader Sabi