Dismissed¶63

A v. Nagaraj v M S Jeevithesh

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2025WP/8794/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court 2025; W.P. No. 8794 of 2025 (HRC) dismissed by Ravi V Hosmani J.; refusal to stay rent proceedings under Section 10 CPC; H.R.C. no.12/2013 under Section 27(e), (h), (i) Karnataka Rent Act 1999; specific performance suit O.S.no.654/2019 before IX Additional Civil Judge, Mysore; agreement to sale dated 06.06.1986; tenancy admitted in written statement; tenancy cannot be adjudicated in suit for specific performance; contradictory findings contention rejected; reliance on earlier order in W.P. no.10306/2023; VI Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Mysore order dated 20.01.2025 upheld.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings before the Trial Court in the suit and before the Rent Court would be different, and the question of tenancy cannot be adjudicated in the suit for specific performance. ¶59

A v Nagaraj Vs M S Jeevithesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging rejection of the application (I.A. no.XXXI) for stay of H.R.C. no.12/2013 proceedings under Section 10 of CPC, pending O.S.no.654/2019, on the ground of likelihood of contradictory findings between the two proceedings, was tenable.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Proceedings before the Trial Court in the suit and before the Rent Court would be different, and the question of tenancy cannot be adjudicated in the suit for specific performance.

¶59

Key takeaways

The original respondent in the rent proceedings had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant in the written statement.ratio¶59
In view of the admitted landlord-tenant relationship and the difference between the two proceedings, the present writ petition was not tenable and the rejection by the trial Court of the application for stay was justified, as the requirements of Section 10 of CPC would not be met.ratio¶59
Rent proceedings and the civil suit being filed for adjudication of different rights of the parties in different contexts, the final decision in the rent petition would not come in the way of the petitioners pursuing the suit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Ravi V Hosmani J., single Bench) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 20.01.2025 of the VI Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Mysore, rejecting I.A. no.XXXI in H.R.C. no.12/2013 — an application to stay rent proceedings (eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 27(e), (h) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999) until determination of the parties' rights in O.S.no.654/2019, the petitioners' suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale dated 06.06.1986 (consideration Rs.65,000/-; advance Rs.41,000/-; balance Rs.24,000/- payable as rent till 2005). Relying on its earlier order in W.P. no.10306/2023, the Court held that the original respondent had admitted the landlord-tenant relationship in the written statement; that the question of tenancy cannot be adjudicated in a suit for specific performance; that the rent proceedings and the civil suit adjudicate different rights of the parties in different contexts, so the final decision in the rent petition would not preclude pursuit of the suit; and that the requirements of Section 10 CPC were therefore not met, making rejection of the stay application justified. Writ petition dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 8794 OF 2025 (HRC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

A V NAGARAJ S/O LATE A. VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶9

SMT AV GUNASAGARI, D/O LATE A VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶10

SMT AV ANUSUYA DEVI, D/O LATE A VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT AV GAYATHRI DEVI, D/O LATE A VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶13

SRI AV GANESH BABU, D/O LATE A VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶14

SMT AV SAVITHRI DEVI, D/O LATE A VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶15

SMT AV SHARADA DEVI, D/O LATE A VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI AV SOMASHEKAR, S/O LATE A VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶19

ALL ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 695/1-B, SIDDAPPA VATTARA, BEHIND PADMA TALKIES, B.B. GARDEN ROAD, FORT MOHALLA, MYSURU PIN - 570 004

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

M S JEEVITHESH S/O LATE MS SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 1036/6, SARVAJANIKA HOSTEL MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU - 570 029

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI. C.M. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 20.01.2025 IN HRC NO.12/2013 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSURU (PRODUCED VIDE ANX-A) THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE P-8 /R-1 (H) SEEKING TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN HRC NO. 12/2013 TILL DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN OS NO. 654/2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Heard Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri C.M. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for respondent.

¶34

Writ Petition is filed challenging order dated 20.01.2025 passed by VI Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Mysore, in H.R.C. no.12/2013 rejecting I.A. no.XXXI filed therein.

¶35

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that respondent had filed petition under Section 27(e), (h) and (i) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, ‘ Act ’) against petitioners herein to evict them from schedule property etc. Said petition was being contested by petitioners. During pendency of proceedings, petitioners found out that father of respondent had executed an agreement to sale dated 06.06.1986 in favour of A.Veerappa i.e., father of petitioners with regard to suit property in question for a

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

sale consideration of Rs.65,000/-. The agreement stated

¶39

that father of respondent had received advance consideration of Rs.41,000/- and balance amount of Rs.24,000/- was to be paid by petitioners as rent till year 2005. The agreement further stated that in pursuance of sale, petitioners were put in possession of suit property.

¶40

Thereafter on 27.05.2019, petitioners got issued a legal notice to respondent calling upon him to come forward and perform his part of contract. On failure to comply, O.S.no.654/2019 was filed before IX Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, for relief of specific performance. Said suit was being contested by respondent by filing written statement. It was submitted that in view of pendency of suit, wherein relationship of petitioners and respondent as agreement holder and seller was being adjudicated, proceedings in H.R.C. no.12/2013 could not be continued as petitioners in said petition had denied relationship of landlord and tenant.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

In view of above, an application as per Annexure-F was filed for stay of proceedings in HRC.

¶44

Said application was opposed by respondent by filing objections as per Annexure-G. But, under impugned order at Annexure-A, said application was rejected. Aggrieved, present Writ Petition was filed.

¶45

It was submitted impugned order was contrary to law, passed without proper appreciation of facts and circumstances of case wherein contradictory findings in two petitions between same parties with regard to same property were likely to be passed. Therefore, prayed for allowing Writ Petition.

¶46

On other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted, on an earlier occasion when petitioners herein had filed application for amendment in HRC proceedings and same was rejected, they had approached this Court in W.P. no.10306/2023. In said petition, Court had held: -

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

“9. The original respondent in the written statement admitted the relationship. Perusal of the alleged agreement of sale, indicated that the husband of the original respondent admitted the relationship, and continued as a tenant, and was not put in possession of suit property under agreement of sale. The outcome of the suit for specific performance will not have any bearing on the petition filed by the respondent for evicting the petitioners, since the question of tenancy cannot be adjudicated in the suit for specific performance. Accordingly, the Trial Court and the Revisional Court have rightly passed the impugned orders. I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders.”

¶50

In view of above observation present Writ

¶51

Petition would be untenable and sought for dismissal.

¶52

It was also submitted that since proceedings under Rent Act would not amount to a suit, provisions of Section 10 of CPC would not be attracted and on said grounds sought for rejection of petition.

¶53

Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused Writ Petition.

¶54

From above, petitioners’ grievance against order rejecting application filed under Section 10 of CPC in HRC proceedings was that they were not inducted as

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

tenants, but were put in possession in pursuance of an agreement of sale, as specific performance of which they had sought in O.S.no.654 of 2019. Since relationship of petitioners and respondent as holder of agreement of sale and seller would be decided comprehensively in suit, proceedings in Rent Petition could not be pursued as there was likelihood of contrary findings.

¶58

A perusal of order passed in W.P.

¶59

no.10306/2023 reveals though it was on an application for amendment, this Court after taking note of facts and circumstances, held proceedings before Trial Court in suit and Rent Court would be different and question of tenancy cannot be adjudicated in suit for specific performance. This court also observed that original respondent in rent proceedings had admitted relationship of landlord and tenant in the written statement. Such being case, present petition would not be tenable, rejection by trial Court for application of stay would be justified as requirements of Section 10 of CPC would not be met. Needless to observe

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34592 WP No. 8794 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

that rent proceedings and civil suit being filed for adjudication of different rights of parties in different contexts, final decision in rent petition would not come in way of petitioner pursuing suit.

¶63

Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. All pending

¶64

interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶65

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶66

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT-SG

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 20.01.2025 in H.R.C. no.12/2013 rejecting I.A. no.XXXI, the application (Annexure-F) for stay of rent proceedings pending determination of rights in O.S.no.654/2019¶34
VI Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Mysore · 20.01.2025
Prior proceeding
Respondent filed eviction petition H.R.C. no.12/2013 under Section 27(e), (h) and (i) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 against petitioners to evict them from schedule property; petition was being contested by petitioners.¶35
Prior proceeding
During pendency, petitioners found that father of respondent had executed an agreement to sale dated 06.06.1986 in favour of A.Veerappa, father of petitioners, with regard to the suit property.¶35
Prior proceeding
Terms of the agreement: sale consideration of Rs.65,000/-; advance consideration of Rs.41,000/- received by respondent's father; balance Rs.24,000/- to be paid by petitioners as rent till year 2005; petitioners were put in possession of suit property in pursuance of sale.¶39
Prior proceeding
On 27.05.2019 petitioners issued a legal notice to respondent calling upon him to perform his part of the contract.¶40
Prior proceeding
On failure to comply, petitioners filed O.S.no.654/2019 before IX Additional Civil Judge, Mysore for specific performance; respondent contested the suit by filing written statement.¶40
Prior proceeding
Petitioners contended that H.R.C. no.12/2013 could not be continued since they had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, the relationship as agreement holder and seller being adjudicated in the suit.¶40
Prior proceeding
An application as per Annexure-F was filed for stay of proceedings in HRC.¶43
Prior proceeding
Respondent opposed the stay application by filing objections as per Annexure-G; under the impugned order at Annexure-A the application was rejected; aggrieved, the present writ petition was filed.¶44
Prior proceeding
Earlier, petitioners' application for amendment in HRC proceedings was rejected and they had approached this Court in W.P. no.10306/2023, wherein the Court held that the original respondent had admitted the tenancy in the written statement and that the outcome of the specific performance suit would have no bearing on the eviction petition.¶46

A v. Nagaraj v M S Jeevithesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A v. Nagaraj v M S Jeevithesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavyamani M M Vs the Managing Director

Nsl Sugars Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Seenappa @ Srinivas Vs Kptcl

Sri. R. Mahesh, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.M. Chandrashekar Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Smt. v Savitha Vs the State of Karnataka