M/S Davanam Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Pssv Incoporation

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51155 WP No. 33892 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33892 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. DAVANAM JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., (COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT) NO.8, COMMERCIAL STREET JUNCTION, KAMRAJ ROAD, CIVIL STATION, BENGALURU - 560 042 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS MR. D.V. RAVINDRANATH

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BHARGAV G, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S. PSSV INCOPORATION PARTNERSHIP FIRM

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS

¶14

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SMT. PUSHPA SHAILENDRA W/O LATE L SHAILENDRA AGED 59 YEARS

¶17

SMT. SONAL SHAILENDRA D/O LATE L SHAILENDRA AGED 35 YEARS

¶18

SRI. VIKYATH. S. LATCHMAIAH S/O LATE L. SHAILENDRA

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:51155 WP No. 33892 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AGED 29 YEARS

¶23

ALL RESIDING AT NO. 5, SATHYANARAYANA TEMPLE STREET, HALASURU, BENGALURU - 560 008

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. G.R. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 30.10.2024 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED BY THE LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-87) ON I.A.NO.2 IN COM.O.S.NO. 487/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶31

This petition is filed by the defendant in Commercial O.S. No. 487/2024 being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court dated 30.10.2024. It is the

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:51155 WP No. 33892 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendant before the Commercial Court and also for recovery of arrears of rent from October 2022 to till date of delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have leased the property to the defendant since 30.04.2006 vide a registered lease deed dated 28.03.2007 and that the term of lease for a period of 15 years expired on 30.04.2021. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that the defendant defaulted in making payment of monthly rent and thereby got issued a legal notice on 07.02.2022 terminating the tenancy and a subsequent notice on 20.12.2023 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, calling upon the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. It was also stated that the defendant has become an unauthorised occupant since January 2024.

¶36

Learned counsel for the defendant has appeared before the Commercial Court and filed his written statement and he has also filed a counter-claim seeking a direction to

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:51155 WP No. 33892 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

extend the lease period by another 15 years and for other reliefs as he has developed the property and spent a huge amount for the development of the said property on the premise that the plaintiff would extend the lease period. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commercial Court has passed the impugned order, which is illegal and perverse, as the Commercial Court has ordered payment of rent prior to the date of institution of the suit, which the plaintiff is not entitled to, and it is also erroneously held by the Commercial Court that the defendant is liable to pay the agreed monthly rent from October, 2022 to October, 2024. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that he has not admitted with regard to the liability to pay arrears of rent. He has already deposited the rents on a monthly basis and at the instance of the plaintiff, the rents were deposited by way of cash and he has also deposited ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) before the trial Court on 27.09.2024.

¶41

It is contended by learned counsel for the defendant that apart from denying the averments made in the

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:51155 WP No. 33892 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

plaint, he has made a counter claim for payment of the security deposit of ₹30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only). In addition to it, a sum of ₹1,24,10,999/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Four Lakhs Ten Thousand Nine hundred and Ninety Nine only) which is spent by the defendant for improvement of the suit schedule premises at the instance of the plaintiff. Therefore, he has sought for a counter claim against the plaintiff before the Commercial Court and also for an extension of the lease period by another 15 years starting from 2021. On these grounds, he seeks leave of this Court to allow his petition and set-aside the impugned order and also for the trial Court to consider the counterclaim and the averments made therein and also the deposit of rents made by the defendant by way of cash at the instance of the plaintiffs.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Commercial Court, wherein the Commercial Court has passed an order directing the defendant to pay the agreed rent amount from October, 2022. The impugned order is a considered order and the trial Court has

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51155 WP No. 33892 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

come to the conclusion that the tenancy is not in dispute and

¶50

therefore, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. The defendant has been paying rent, which is also not in dispute. It is a contention of the defendant that he has paid rents by way of cash for which the plaintiffs have not given the receipts. However, the defendant has not placed any material before the Court to show the payment of cash which is acknowledged or any receipt produced to that effect. Therefore, it would be open for the defendant to establish the same in the course of his evidence, if already adduced and further to be adduced. The Commercial Court has also opined that the inference that is drawn while passing the impugned order is not a final order, the same would be subject to the final result in the original suit proceedings and also the counter claim. The fact that the defendant is a tenant is not in dispute and rents are being paid either by cash or by way of deposit, the defendant cannot escape the liability of payment of rent. If at all the defendant has paid excess rent and he is able to prove the same in the course of trial by way of evidence, either oral or documentary, the same could be adjusted for future rents.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:51155 WP No. 33892 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

It is also seen that the defendant along with the written statement has filed a counter claim seeking necessary relief with regard to the extension of the period of lease and also for repayment of the amount invested by the defendant, amounting to more than ₹1,24,10,999/- and the security deposit which he made at the time of obtaining the lease. All these questions would have to be adjudicated in the trial. Nevertheless, on the basis of the memo of calculations, the defendant has this day paid a sum of Rs.20,69,150/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Fifty only) by way of a cheque which is handed over to the counsel for the plaintiffs and the same is acknowledged. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reasons to interfere with the order and neither is any perversity shown by the defendant with regard to the impugned order.

¶55

For the aforesaid reason it would be open to the Commercial Court to deduct any amount that is paid in excess by the defendant and also to refund any amount which is deposited excess either by way of rent or by way of investment made on the building, all this is matter of trial which have to be

¶56