Dismissed

Sri Eshwar Rao v. Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026RFA/2542/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Regular First Appeal filed by a tenant challenging the dismissal of his suit for permanent injunction. The Court held that a tenant's injunction suit is not maintainable absent averments of unlawful coercive action by the landlord against the due process initiated via statutory notice.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The appellant (tenant) was granted one year's time to vacate the premises.

Sri Eshwar Rao Vs Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27941 RFA No. 2542 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2542 OF 2025 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI ESHWAR RAO S/O. VENKOB RAO AGE 45 YEARS, R/AT.#7/3B, NO.8, GROUND FLOOR, IST CROSS, ABBIGERE, BANGALORE -560 090.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SHANKARAIAH B, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

COMMISSIONER

¶12

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARPALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER SHETTIHALLI SUB DIVISION, BBMP WARD NO, 12, NEAR GOVT SCHOOL, RAVINDRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 015.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.08.2025 PASSED BY THE

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27941 RFA No. 2542 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN OS NO.4507/2024 AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with

¶25

consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff calling in question the order dated 16.08.2025 passed in O.S.No.4507/2024 by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-25), Bengaluru¹ , thereby, the suit filed for permanent injunction was dismissed.

¶27

It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, which is owned by the defendant and the plaintiff is running hotel business and he is paying regular monthly rent without

¶28

1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27941 RFA No. 2542 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

any default, but the defendant has issued a legal notice to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit premises; therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction.

¶32

The defendant entered appearance and contended that the plaintiff had not issued any statutory notice as required under Section 482 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 or Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’). It is stated that the plaintiff had obtained possession of the property without permission from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) authorities to run the shop and had not entered into a rental agreement with the BBMP; therefore, the defendant issued a statutory notice to the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises and the process of getting the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises is being carried out in due process of law after issuance of the legal notice dated 27.05.2024. Hence, the suit filed for permanent injunction is not maintainable.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:27941 RFA No. 2542 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The Trial Court has framed the issues regarding

¶37

the maintainability of the suit and held that the suit was not maintainable. Accordingly, dismissed the suit.

¶38

The reason given by the Trial Court is that the plaintiff has not produced documents showing that his licence was renewed; thus, dismissed the suit.

¶39

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this instant regular first appeal by raising various grounds.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the notice issued on 27.05.2024, calling upon the plaintiff to pay the rent and hand over possession of the suit schedule property within 15 days, but the Trial Court has erroneously passed the order dismissing the suit. Therefore, prays to admit the appeal and hear the appellant.

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27941 RFA No. 2542 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/defendants submitted that admittedly, the plaintiff is a tenant and the defendant being owner of the suit schedule property has issued a statutory notice calling upon the plaintiff to hand over vacant possession; therefore, by taking due process of law, the defendant desired to get the plaintiff vacated from the suit schedule premises. Further, it is submitted that merely because the plaintiff is a tenant, the suit for injunction is not maintainable. Hence, justified the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶44

Considering the suit and the arguments canvassed by the counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, admittedly, the plaintiff is a tenant and the defendant is the owner. The plaintiff, being a tenant, is in permissive possession and there is no averment in the plaint that the defendant has acted against the law to obtain vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Whereas, the plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27941 RFA No. 2542 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

issued a notice on 27.05.2024; therefore, by issuing the statutory notice, the defendant has initiated due process

¶48

of law by calling upon the plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule premises.

¶49

When the plaintiff is a tenant and the defendant

¶50

is the owner, without there being any averment or material that the defendant has taken coercive action to make the plaintiff vacate the premises, the suit for injunction by the tenant is not maintainable. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in dismissing the suit, which needs no interference. Hence, no good grounds are available to admit the appeal. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself.

¶51

12. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed .

¶52

However, the appellant/plaintiff is given one

¶53

year’s time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the defendant from today.

¶54

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:27941 RFA No. 2542 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

If the appellant/plaintiff offers a higher rent

¶57

amount to the defendant, then the defendant may consider the request of the plaintiff as per law, only on the condition that there shall not be any arrears of rent from

¶58

the plaintiff.

¶59

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶60

SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sri Eshwar Rao v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Eshwar Rao v. Commissioner

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

M/S the Shirts Factory Vs Mr Gopal B R

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vs Dr.C. Parvathi

Smt Madevamma @ Mahadevamma Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri. Jayaramaiah Vs Sri.v. Rajendra

Pidilite Industries Limited Vs Anand Petro Chemicals Lube

Smt. Shoba Mallik @ Shobha Anil Vs the Managing Director