Dismissed

Smt Paramjeet Kaur v. Sri v M Chakravarthy

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026COMAP/250/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka disposed of an appeal challenging only the eviction decree in a landlord-tenant suit. Accepting the appellant's undertaking to vacate within six months and pay occupation charges, the Court dismissed the appeal against that part while clarifying that the trial court must adjudicate pending monetary claims and the question of lease term duration. All rights regarding re

What did the court decide?

Eviction appeal dismissed by accepting appellant's undertaking to vacate within six months and pay occupation charges; trial court directed to adjudicate pending monetary claims.

Smt Paramjeet Kaur Vs Sri v M Chakravarthy — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27210-DB COMAP No. 250 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. PARAMJEET KAUR W/O. HARJINDER SINGH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT AXIZ ASPIRA FLAT No.103, KOTHNUR ROAD NAVODAYA NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 076

¶11

Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

ALSO AT: "SRINIVASA KRUPA" BUILDING No.1/7 (GROUND FLOOR) ASHOKA PILLAR CIRCLE 100 FEET ROAD 10^TH MAIN ROAD FIRST BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011 REP. BY GPA HOLDER HARJINDER SINGH

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SMT. A. KUNDAVAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:27210-DB COMAP No. 250 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

V.M. CHAKRAVARTHY S/O DR. V.S. MURTHY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT SUMITHRA, No.934 20^TH MAIN, BSK 2^ND STAGE BANGALORE - 560 070

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI PRADYUMNA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND DISMISS THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN COM.O.S. NO.517/2024 BY HON'BLE LXXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU (COMMERCIAL COURT) (CCH-89), AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶27

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned LXXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Commercial

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:27210-DB COMAP No. 250 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Court), Bengaluru (CCH-89) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Commercial Court' ], in COM.OS.No.517/2024.

¶32

The respondent had instituted the said suit claiming to be the absolute owner of the property bearing the name "Srinivasa Krupa" located at No.1/7, Ground Floor, Ashoka Pillar Circle, 100 Feet Road, 10^th Main Road, 1^st Blcok, Jayanagar, Bengaluru - 560 011 [hereinafter referred to as ' the demised premises' ). The

¶33

respondent had sought the following reliefs in suit:

¶34

a. Evict the Defendant from the Scheduled Premises and direct the Defendant to Quit, vacate and hand over physical vacant possession of the said premises to the Plaintiff in the condition that it was leased out.

¶35

b. Direct the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.47,55,000/- Towards arrears of rent until date of filing this suit and up to date rent till disposal of the present suit/realization of the entire amount.

¶36

c. Granting such other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the appellant had executed a lease agreement dated 01.04.2021, whereby the demised premises was leased for a period of 11 months. The said period expired on

¶38

28.02.2022. There is no dispute that the appellant was liable to

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27210-DB COMAP No. 250 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

pay rent at the rate of `1,90,000/- per month for the said period. There is also no dispute that after termination of the lease, the appellant has no subsisting interest in the demised premises and she is liable to vacate the same. The learned Commercial Court had directed the appellant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession to the respondent, and had disposed of the suit to the said extent. However, the question regarding mesne profits, damages and any adjustments of security deposit is pending for further consideration before the learned Commercial Court. The impugned judgment is confined to granting a decree of eviction.

¶42

The present appeal was listed on 02.06.2026 and after some arguments, the appellant had stated that she would vacate the premises within a period of six (06) months from date and also furnished an undertaking. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order passed on 02.06.2026 is relevant and are set out below:

¶43

"8. After some arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant states on instructions that the appellant would vacate the premises within a period of 6 months from date. In the meantime, within a period of 4 weeks from date she will pay an amount towards occupation charges for a period of 25 months calculated at `1,90,000/- per month and continue to pay the said amount for a period of 6 months from date in advance

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:27210-DB COMAP No. 250 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

on or before 10^th of each month. The first payment would be made on or before 10.06.2026. The claim made by the respondent exceed the amount admittedly payable by the appellant. In this regard we clarify the payments mentioned above would be without prejudice to the rights of the respondent in regard to its monetary claims.

¶48

9. Let an undertaking to the aforesaid effect in the form of an affidavit be filed by the appellant before the next date of hearing."

¶49

In terms of the said order, the appellant has filed an undertaking, which is taken on record. Considering that the impugned judgment and decree is only for evicting the appellant from the demised premises, no further orders are required to be passed. The present appeal is required to be disposed of in terms of the undertaking.

¶50

However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that one of the findings in the impugned judgment foreclose the appellant's arguments regarding the amount paid for the period from March 2022 till March 2023.

¶51

The learned counsel submits that the learned Commercial Court recorded the finding that the lease agreement dated

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27210-DB COMAP No. 250 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

01.04.2021 was for a period of 11 months only. She submits that the term of the lease was for a period of 2 years and the rental payable to the respondent for the said period was fixed at Rs.1,90,000/- per month. Admittedly, the lease agreement is not registered and therefore the appellant could not claim any interest in the demised premises for the period beyond 11 months, which is the term of the lease as expressly stated in the said agreement. Having stated the above, we may also clarify that the question as to the amount payable by the appellant for the period after the expiry of the period of 11 months, i.e., after February, 2022, is left open and would be a subject matter for adjudication by the learned Commercial Court.

¶55

As noted before, the judgment and decree is only for eviction of the appellant from the demised premises.

¶56

In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of with the clarification that the learned Commercial Court shall examine and adjudicate the total amount payable by the appellant for the period after February, 2022. Further, the appellant could also be

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:27210-DB COMAP No. 250 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

granted credit for the amounts paid pursuant to the undertaking. All rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are reserved.

¶61

Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶62

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶63

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶64

SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17

Smt Paramjeet Kaur v. Sri v M Chakravarthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Paramjeet Kaur v. Sri v M Chakravarthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr M Senthil Vs Major Manivannan P

Sri B.P.Mahadevappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.B.Venkateshwara Reddy, Vs Sri.N.B.Gurudeva

Mr Rangaswamy Babu Vs Sri. Manivannan P.

Sri P Raveen Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Narayana Punchame, Vs the State of Karnataka