Disposed

M/S. Taj Palace v. Ms. Shazia Fathima Ahmed @ Shazia Ahmed

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2026COMAP/537/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants in a commercial appeal handed over keys of the demised premises to the respondents. Court deemed possession transferred, closed the dispute by agreeing that respondents adjust the security deposit against all dues other than utilities, and disposed of the appeal with pending IAs also disposed of.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S. Taj Palace Vs Ms. Shazia Fathima Ahmed @ Shazia… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1603-DB COMAP No. 537 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 537 OF 2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

M/S. TAJ PALACE BEING A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT PROPERTY BEARING MUNICIPAL NO. 66/1 (OLD NO. 22) WITH PID NO. 91-66-66/1 and MUNICIPAL NO. 67 (OLD NO 22/1) WITH PID NO.91-96-97 MILLERS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, CORPORATION WARD NO. 91, ' BENGALURU 560 042 BY ITS PARTNER MR.GHANI HANAF

¶14

MR. GHANI HANEEF PARTNER, M/S TAJ PALACE HAVING HIS OFFICE AT PROPERTY BEARING MUNCIPAL NO. 66/1 (OLD NO.22) WITH PID NO. 91-66-66/1 AND MUNICIPAL NO. 67 (OLD NO. 22/1) WITH PID NO. 91-96-67, MILLERS ROAD, BENSON TOWN CORPORATION WARD NO. 91, BENGALURU-560 046 ADMN OFFICE 5/2 MAIN GUARD

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1603-DB COMAP No. 537 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

CROSS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

¶18

MR. ZAMEEN AHMED S.S. PARTNER OF M/S TAJ PALACE AND PROPERTY OF M/S CAR MART, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT: PROPERTY BEARING MUNICIPAL No.66/1 (OLD No.22) WITH PID NO. 91-66-66/1 AND MUNICIPAL NO. 67 (OLD NO 22/1) WITH PID No.91-96-97, MILLERS ROAD, BENSON TOWN CORPORATION WARD NO. 91, BENGALURU-560 042

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. M.D.RAGHUNATH.,ADVOCATE NOS.1 & 2 SRI. B.S. SATYANAND., ADVOCATE FOR A3)

¶21

AND:

¶22

MS. SHAZIA FATHIMA AHMED @ SHAZIA AHMED D/O LATE SALEEM AHMED AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT B1, FIRST FLOOR, REGENCY HAMSA APARTMENTS NO. 1 LLOYD ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT COOKE TOWN, BENGALURU 560 005

¶23

MRS. TASNEEM FATHIMA @TASNEEM FATHIMA MAGRABI @TASNEEM FATHIMA AHMED AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS D/O LATE SALEEM AHMED R/AT NO. C-401, SPARTAN HEIGHTS RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025

¶24

MR. MOHAMMED AMAAN SHAHBAAZ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O MOIN AHMED SHAHBAZ

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:1603-DB COMAP No. 537 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

R/AT NO. 22, BAYSIDE, 8 CHIMBAI ROAD BANDRA WEST, MUMBAI-400 050

¶29

MR ALI ADNAN SHAHBAAZ AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O MOIN AHMED SHABAZ R/AT NO. 26, SATURDAY BRIDGE GAS STREET, BIRMINGHAM B1 2JX UNITED KINGDOM

¶30

RESPONDENTS 1,3 & 4 BEING HEREIN BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MRS. TASNEEM FATHIMA @ TASNEEM FATHIMA MAGRABI @ TASNEEM FATHIMA AHMED. D/O LATE SALEEM AHMED, R/AT NO. C-401, SPARTAN HEIGHTS RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SMT. NAYANATARA B.G., ADVOCATE & MS. VIDYA PAI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2)

¶33

THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LXXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, CCH 86 IN COM.OS NO.299/2023 DATED 21.08.2025.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1603-DB COMAP No. 537 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

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

¶40

The learned counsel for the appellants has handed over

¶41

the keys to the demised premises to the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶42

In view of the above, the possession of the premises in question is deemed to have been handed over and taken over by the respondents today.

¶43

The only question that remains to be addressed is with regard to the monetary adjustments on account of mesne profits and other dues.

¶44

The learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants would be satisfied if all the dues [other than payments to utilities] are closed with the adjustment of the security deposit already lying with the respondents.

¶45

The learned counsel for the respondents states on instructions that the respondents are agreeable for the same.

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1603-DB COMAP No. 537 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

In view of the above, the dispute between the parties is now closed. The respondents are not required to pay any amount of the security deposit to the appellants and are entitled to adjust the same as full and final settlement of the dues other than utilities payable by the appellants.

¶49

The learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants will ensure that all electricity and water charges are duly paid upto date. In the event, there are any bills that are outstanding, a copy of the same would be furnished to the appellants [and their counsel] and the same would be discharged within a period of two weeks from the date the bills are handed over. The appellants are bound down to the statement that the said bills would be paid within the said period.

¶50

In the event the said bills are not paid, the respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the said dues. They would also be entitled to initiate proceedings for Contempt of Court.

¶51

The appeal is disposed of with above observations.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:1603-DB COMAP No. 537 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Pending IAs., if any, also stand disposed of.

¶56

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶57

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶58

VMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

M/S. Taj Palace v. Ms. Shazia Fathima Ahmed @ Shazia Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S. Taj Palace v. Ms. Shazia Fathima Ahmed @ Shazia Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Shiva Prasad Vs the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Sharanappa Vs State of Karnataka

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Shri Jerala Correa

M/S. Shamnur Sugars Limited Vs Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey IAS

Sammaan Finserve Limited Vs Mr. Chimanlal Talreja

Sanjay Shetty Vs the Additional Commissioner