Dismissed¶57

Mr. Mohana Chandra. P. v. Mr. Manjunatha H.

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2026RFA/1825/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (R. Nataraj, J.) dismisses RFA No. 1825 of 2025 against ejectment decree passed on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC; tenant admitted tenancy, rent and receipt/reply to termination notice dated 22.03.2024; decree for ejectment and arrears upheld despite absence of pre-decree hearing; party-in-person appellant; related injunction suit O.S.No.3040/2023; security deposit Rs.1,20,000/-; arrears claimed from March 2023; liberty to sue for recovery of movables.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant against the ejectment decree; liberty effectively reserved to the defendant to institute appropriate proceedings for recovery of movables allegedly removed from the premises; all pending I.As. disposed of. ¶57

Mr. Mohana Chandra. P. Vs Mr. Manjunatha H. — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court acted impermissibly in proceeding to decide the suit on merits after hearing I.A.Nos.4, 6 and 7, and whether the defendant was entitled to be heard before a judgment on admission was passed. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

The defendant admitted his tenancy, the rate of rent, the institution of O.S.No.3040/2023 for perpetual injunction, non-production of any material showing payment of rent from March 2023, and receipt of (and reply to) the notice of termination dated 22.03.2024; consequently nothing else remained to be considered in the suit and the Trial Court rightly so held.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

Although the Trial Court would have done well to give the defendant an opportunity to address arguments before passing a judgment on admission, the defendant, having appeared in person and not disputed his tenancy, receipt of the termination notice or his reply thereto, could not have addressed any other argument; no error warranting interference was committed.

¶53

Key takeaways

As regards the defendant's application for restoration of movables stored in the suit schedule property, it is open to him to institute proceedings before the appropriate Court to recover those movables, subject to proof of the allegations against the plaintiff and in accordance with law.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC against judgment and decree dated 02.07.2025 in O.S.No.4849/2024 (XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) decreeing ejectment and arrears of rent: Appeal dismissed. The defendant admitted his tenancy under the rent agreement dated 04.04.2021 (eleven months; monthly rent Rs.10,000/-; security deposit Rs.1,20,000/-), did not produce any material showing payment of rent from March 2023, did not deny termination of tenancy by notice dated 22.03.2024, and replied to that notice acknowledging receipt. The Trial Court rightly invoked Order XII Rule 6 CPC and decreed the suit on admission. Although the Trial Court would have done well to give the defendant an opportunity to address arguments before passing a judgment on admission, the defendant, having admitted the tenancy, receipt of the termination notice and his reply thereto, could not have addressed any other argument; hence no error warranting interference. Liberty reserved to the defendant to institute appropriate proceedings for recovery of movables allegedly removed from the premises, subject to proof; all pending I.As. disposed of.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:15163 RFA No. 1825 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1825 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. MOHANA CHANDRA P. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE JANARDHANA NAYAK P. R/AT NO.12, 1^ST FLOOR, RMV II STAGE, ASHWATHNAGAR, BANGALORE -560094 AT PRESENT R/AT ROOM NO.8, BUILDING NO.14, RMV II STAGE, ASHAWATHNAGARA, BANGALORE -560094

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P., PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MR. MANJUNATHA H., AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH R/AT NO.12, 3^RD FLOOR, RMV II STAGE, ASHWATHNAGAR, BANGALORE -560094

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. VIJAYA M.N., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT)

¶17

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.4849/2024 ON THE FILE OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:15163 RFA No. 1825 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

The defendant in O.S.No.4849/2024 on the file of the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2025.

¶26

(i) The suit in O.S.No.4849/2024 was filed for ejectment of the defendant from the suit property and for arrears of rent. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was inducted into the premises in terms of a rent agreement dated 04.04.2021 initially for a period of eleven months on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant had paid security deposit of Rs.1,20,000/-. He alleged that defendant was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and that he was in arrears of rent of Rs.1,84,000/- from March 2023. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had offered to vacate the premises against he refunding the security deposit of

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15163 RFA No. 1825 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Rs.1,20,000/- and accordingly, he paid a sum of Rs.15,000/and was bound to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-. However, the defendant instead of vacating the premises, filed the suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.3040/2023. He claimed that from the date the defendant filed the suit, he had failed to pay the rent and had also failed to vacate the premises. He was therefore, constrained to cause a notice dated 22.03.2024 terminating the tenancy and called upon the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession. He thereafter, filed the instant suit for ejectment of the defendant.

¶30

(ii) The suit was contested by the defendant who admitted the tenancy as well as the rate of rent. He also admitted that he had received a sum of Rs.15,000/- out of a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-, which was the security deposit paid by him.

¶31

(iii) During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed two applications namely, I.A.No.6 for restoration of electricity and water supply and I.A.No.7 to appoint a Court Commissioner to verify the disconnection of the civic amenities. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.4 seeking arrears of rent.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:15163 RFA No. 1825 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

(iv) The Trial Court heard all the applications and having regard to the fact that the defendant did not dispute that he was a tenant in the premises and also that his tenancy was terminated by a legal notice dated 22.03.2024 and taking note of the submission made by the plaintiff that he was ready to adjust the security deposit against the arrears of rent and the submission of the defendant that he would vacate the premises after the receipt of the entire security deposit, the Trial Court employed Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and passed a decree based on admission and directed the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property.

¶36

(v) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant is before this Court.

¶37

In this appeal, the defendant has filed I.A.No.1/2025 for direction to the plaintiff to restore electricity and water supply, I.A.No.2/2025 for appointment of a Court Commissioner to verify whether civic amenities are provided to the premises in question or not and I.A.No.3/2025 for stay of the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The defendant has filed I.A.No.1/2026 for restoration of

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15163 RFA No. 1825 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the possession of the defendant in the suit schedule premises and also the movables of the defendant which were unauthorizedly removed from the suit schedule premises. He has also filed I.A.No.2/2026 for direction to the plaintiff and the defendant to undergo Narco Analysis Test/Brain Maping Test.

¶41

The defendant, who has appeared in person, submits that he is in possession of the suit property and that the plaintiff has taken law into his hands and removed all his valuables from the suit property. He contends that the Trial Court after having heard I.A.Nos.4, 6 and 7, proceeded to decide the suit on merits, which is impermissible. He contends that he was entitled to be heard before passing a judgment on admission.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant relates to termination of tenancy. She contends that the defendant has admitted his tenancy in the premises under the plaintiff and that the tenancy is lawfully terminated. She therefore, contended that there was no further proof required for the Trial Court to decide the suit and therefore, the Trial Court has

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15163 RFA No. 1825 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

rightly employed Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and decreed the suit based on admission. She contends that the defendant has already vacated the house and hence, this appeal has become infructuous. She therefore, prays that this appeal be dismissed.

¶46

I have considered the submissions of the defendant who has appeared in person and the learned counsel for the plaintiff. I have also perused the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶47

This Court appointed an advocate as Commissioner to visit the property and report whether the defendant has vacated the property in question or not. She has reported that the house was vacant and there were no movables in the house.

¶48

A perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the consideration of the submissions of the defendant makes it more than evident that the defendant admits his tenancy in the premises under the plaintiff. He also admits that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs.11,500/- per month. He also admitted that he had filed a suit in O.S.No.3040/2023 for perpetual injunction to restrain the plaintiff from interfering with his possession in the suit schedule property. The

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:15163 RFA No. 1825 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

defendant has not produced any material before the Trial Court to justify that he had paid rent from March 2023 till the date the suit in O.S.No.4849/2024 was filed. The defendant has not denied the termination of his tenancy by the plaintiff in terms of a notice of termination of tenancy dated 22.03.2024. The defendant has replied to the said notice thereby indicating that he had acknowledged the receipt of the notice of termination of tenancy. Therefore, as rightly held by the Trial Court, there was nothing else to be considered in the suit as the defendant had admitted all the contentions raised by the plaintiff.

¶53

No doubt, the Trial Court would have done well by giving an opportunity to the defendant to address arguments before passing a judgment on admission. However, since the defendant who has appeared in person did not dispute the fact that he was a tenant in the premises and that he had received the notice of termination of tenancy and that he had replied to the same, the defendant obviously could not have addressed any other argument. In that view of the matter, I do not see any error committed by the Trial Court in passing a judgment decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, warranting interference.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:15163 RFA No. 1825 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Hence, this appeal is dismissed .

¶58

In so far as the application filed by the defendant seeking for a direction to the plaintiff to restore all his movables that were stored in the suit schedule property, it is open for the defendant to institute proceedings before the appropriate Court to recover those movables, however subject to proof of the allegations against the plaintiff and in accordance with law.

¶59

In view of disposal of the appeal, all pending I.As.,

¶60

stand disposed of.

¶61

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶62

PMR

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Mr. Mohana Chandra. P. v. Mr. Manjunatha H.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mohana Chandra. P. v. Mr. Manjunatha H.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri v Ananda Vs Smt. Sachi Agarwal

N. Chaithanya Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Dr M S Dinakar Vs Hennur Banaswadi Cosmopolitan Club (Regd)

Sannamma Vs H Annappa @ Annappashetty

Gokulan K Vs G Angu @ Anguswamy

Gokulan K Vs G Angu @ Anguswamy