Allowed

Sri K T Srinivas v. Usha Naganna

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025WP/26814/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition challenging trial court order in eviction suit. Court set aside impugned order and remitted matter for adjudication on merits, directing trial court to consider evidence regarding property tax payments and dispose within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.02.2025 set aside; matter remitted to trial court for adjudication on merits within 3 months.

Sri K T Srinivas Vs Usha Naganna — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46406 WP No. 26814 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 26814 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI K T SRINIVAS S/O LATE K J THIRUMALACHAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 56 "SHREE RANGA DHAMA" GOVINDAPPA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU 560004

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA G BHAT.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

USHA NAGANNA W/O SRI NAGANNA AGE 76 YEARS NO 735, IST MAIN ROAD, 2^ND PHASE, 7^TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU 560085

¶13

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

LATHA MRUTHYUNJAYANNA W/O SRI. MRUTHYUNJAYANNA AGE: 74 YEARS, NO.315, 14^TH MAIN, R.M.V. EXTENSION BENGALURU 560 080.

¶15

M.ASHWINI D/O K.P.MUDDANNA AGE: 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.153, 15 MAIN ROAD,M.L.A. LAYOUT R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU-560 032.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46406 WP No. 26814 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

M.SHALINI D/O K.P.MUDDANNA AGE: 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 153, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, M.L.A. LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶19

M.M.HARISH S/O LATE M.H.MUDDULINGANNA AGE: 74 YEARS, R/AT NO. 159, 20^TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 2^ND PHASE BENGALURU 560 078. 6. M.M.MAHESH S/O LATE M.H.MUDDULINGANNA AGE: 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.237, 18TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 080.

¶20

M.M.GANESH S/O LATE.M.H.MUDDULINGANNA AGE: 64 YEARS, R/AT NO. 45, 6^TH CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 8. SHOBHA SATHYANARAYAN W/O SATHYANARAYAN, AGE: 81 YEARS, R/AT NO. 144, 1^ST CROSS, NEHRUNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560003 9. M.L.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE.M.J.LINGANNA, AGE: 87 YEARS, R/AT NO. 579, 3^RD MAIN,2^ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46406 WP No. 26814 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SMT. REKHA PRABHAKAR W/O PRABHAKAR AGE: 73 YEARS, R/AT NO. 579, 3RD MAIN, 2ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶24

SMT. SUMITHRA ARUN W/O LATE M.A.ARUN AGE: 67 YEARS, R/AT NO. 6, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 1 MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS , NGEF LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 094.

¶25

SRI. M.A.SUNIL S/O LATE.M.A.ARUN AGE: 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 6, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS NGEF LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶26

SRI. M.A.SANDEEP S/O LATE.M.A.ARUN AGE: 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 6, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, NGEF LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶27

SRI. M.A.KUMAR S/O SHRI.LATE.M.H.APPAJI, AGE: 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, OLD.NO.17, KANTHA NILAYA, 9^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. S.SRIVATSA, SR.ADV FOR

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:46406 WP No. 26814 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R13)

¶34

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR APPROPRIATE, WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 18/02/2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.11 IN O.S.NO.4916/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-27) BENGALURU, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION., AND ETC.

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramachandra.G.Bhat and learned Senior counsel Sri.S.Srivatsa on behalf of Smt.Udita Ramesh for Respondent Nos.1 to 13.

¶38

The present petition is filed by the

¶39

petitioner/defendant No.2 against the respondent Nos.1 to 14/plaintiff Nos.1 to 14 aggrieved by the impugned order

¶40

passed by the trial Court on IA.No.11 in OS No.4916/2018, on the file of the 12th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH - 27). The suit came to be filed

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:46406 WP No. 26814 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

by the respondents/plaintiffs against the

¶45

petitioner/defendant No.2 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent.

¶46

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, during the pendency of the suit, an application came to be filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking deposit of admitted rent, to which the defendant No.2 filed objections contending that he has paid the rent upto 07.12.2024 and that since the plaintiffs had not paid their property tax for many years, the same was paid by the defendant No.2 to an extent of Rs.20,00,984/-. Therefore, he contends that if the said property tax, which is paid by the defendant No.2, is deducted, there would be no question of paying any arrears of rent, as the petitioner/defendant No.2 has paid more than what is sought by the plaintiffs.

¶47

On this basis, the defendant No.2 sought for rejection of the application. It is also contended by learned counsel for the defendant No.2 that he produced the necessary proof of payment of property tax along with the

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46406 WP No. 26814 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

bank statement and the remittance of the tax before the trial Court to evidence the fact that he had made good the property tax which was not paid by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the same ought to have been deducted by the trial Court while passing the impugned order which it did not do. Thereby the impugned order is erroneous, arbitrary, illegal and perverse and the same deserves to be set aside.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 further contends that after the payment of the property tax of Rs.20,00,984/- he would only be due a sum of Rs.2,40,984/- which he is ready and willing to pay

¶52

by the next date of hearing. But the same has not been considered by the trial Court which is arbitrary and erroneous and hence the same requires to be set aside, and the impugned order also requires to be set aside.

¶53

Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri. S.Srivatsa appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently contends that the defendant No.2 after approaching this Court has been

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46406 WP No. 26814 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

protracting the proceedings, before the trial Court and not subjecting himself to cross-examination or leading evidence. Learned senior counsel fairly submits that this matter could be remitted back and the contentions so

¶57

raised by the defendant No.2 with regard to payment of the property tax amounting to Rs.20,00,984/- which is not admitted could be considered on the basis of the materials placed before the trial Court and decided on merits at the time of the final adjudication. The submission so made by learned senior counsel appears to be fair and proper to be considered by the trial Court during the course of the trial. It is also a fact that the tenancy is not disputed by learned counsel for the defendant No.2.

¶58

7. What the trial Court would have to do is

¶59

determine whether the amount so paid of Rs.20,00,984/is justified and whether it is correct and any amount is to be deducted and further any amount is to be paid to the plaintiffs towards monthly rent. These are mathematical calculations that would have to be undertaken before the trial Court on the basis of the records and materials placed

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46406 WP No. 26814 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

with regard to the deposit of the amount to BBMP which is furnished by the defendant No.2 by way of a statement of the bank account. Under the circumstances, the trial Court having not considered this aspect of remittance of the amount so claimed by the defendant No.2, the order is illegal and requires interference. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶63

ORDER

¶64

The petition is allowed.

¶65

The impugned order passed by the trial Court on IA No. 11 in OS.No.4916/2018 dated 18.02.2025 on the file of the 12th Additional City Civil Sessions Judge CCH27, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶66

The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for adjudication of the matter on the merits. With regard to the arrears, the trial Court is at liberty to consider the documents so produced by the defendant

¶67

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:46406 WP No. 26814 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

No.2 along with the objections to the application IA.No.11 and any other document that he intends to produce during the course of his evidence and so also the objections.

¶71

The plaintiffs would be at liberty to crossexamine and refute such statements and payments so made, which would be taken into consideration by the trial Court on the basis of the materials that would be placed by the parties.

¶72

It is needless to mention that since the suit proceeding initiated by the plaintiffs is of the year 2018, it is appropriate that the trial Court dispose of the matter expeditiously.

¶73

It is made clear that the defendant No.2 is at liberty to adduce evidence, and so also any of his witnesses but shall not protract

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:46406 WP No. 26814 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

the proceedings. However, the trial Court is

¶78

directed to dispose of the matter within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶79

It is made clear this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, including the payments so made and the entitlement of the plaintiffs over the rent.

¶80

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶81

RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri K T Srinivas v. Usha Naganna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K T Srinivas v. Usha Naganna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varalakshmi Vs Devaki

Basheer S M., Vs P B Mohammad Kunhi

Smt.H.a.Shashikala Vs Smt.Rekha

Bank Officers and Officials House Building Co. Operative Society Limited Vs Sri B Sharath

Nagarajagowda Vs N Venkoba Rao

Sri Sunil C S Vs S N N Homes