Smt. Shobha Channabasavaiah Vs M/S S v S Food Crafts

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22766 W.P. No.52962/2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.52962/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SMT. SHOBHA CHANNABASAVAIAH WIFE OF SRI. CHANNABASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.533, NAVAJYOTHI 2ND A CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 079.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI. CHANNABASAVAIAH S/O LATE ADAVAPPA R/AT NO.533, NAVAJYOTHI 2ND A CROSS, 6TH MAIN, III STAGE III BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE - 560079.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADV., FOR SRI. RAJENDRA S, ADV.,)

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/S. S.V.S. FOOD CRAFTS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.3-3-74 PULLA REDDY APARTMENTS QUTBIGUDA KACHIGUDA HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD TELANGANA-500 027.

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22766 W.P. No.52962/2019

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS.

¶17

SRI. THAMMINEDI SAGAR SON OF SRI. T. GANGADHAR RAO AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8-2-674/2/23A HAPPY VALLEY, BANJARA HILLS ROAD NO.13A, HYDERA.BAD, TELANGANA-27.

¶18

SRI. KISHORE KUMAR GADDAM SON OF SRI. G. JAGANNATHAM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.3-3-74/4C, QUTBIGUDA BEHIND RELIANCE DIGITAL, KACHIGUDA HYDERABAD-560027, TELANGANA.

¶19

SRI. VELDURTHY SASHRIK SON SRI. V. SUNIL AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.B-1001 JALY VAYU TOWERS NEAR VARTHA OFFICE LOWER TANK BUND HYDERABAD 560080 TELANGANA-27.

¶20

SRI. KURAPATI SANDEEP KUMAR SON OF SRI. K. VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9-1-35/1 KAMAN BAZAR, KAMMAM-507001 TELANGANA.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MOHAMED ATHER, ADV., FOR R2 (ABSENT) R3 & R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:20.11.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 NOT NECESSARY)

¶23

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.7287/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22766 W.P. No.52962/2019

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

COURT (CCH-60) BENGALURU. QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7287/2017 ON THE APPLICATION, I.A.NO.8, BY ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT (CCH-60) BENGALURU, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-L BY ISSUING APPROPRIATE WRIT AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION & ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶30

CAV JUDGMENT

¶31

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.09.2019 passed on I.A.No.VIII in O.S.No.7287/2017 by the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-60) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court').

¶32

The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.7287/2017 seeking eviction and a money decree against the respondents. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application seeking payment of Rs.52,56,592/towards rent and other charges along with damages at the rate of admitted rent and GST per month from 11.08.2018 till 10.03.2019 amounting to Rs.16,61,051/-. The Trial

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:22766 W.P. No.52962/2019

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Court, after considering the application proceeded to reject

¶37

the same on the ground that the payment of rent and damages was a matter of serious dispute, which ought to be decided during the course of the trial. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶38

Sri.C.M.Nagabhushana, learned counsel

¶39

appearing for Sri.Rajendra S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has passed the impugned order without considering the material on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly considered that the petitioner has violated the construction permission in constructing the building, as the notice issued by the BBMP is with regard to construction of fifth floor i.e. on the existing fourth floor, but the same has not be rightly considered by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that mere abandoning of the property by the respondents without handing over possession would not exonerate their obligation to pay the rents until the petitioner is put back in possession of the

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:22766 W.P. No.52962/2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

leased property by due process. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶44

Though the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have been

¶45

served, there is no representation.

¶46

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶47

counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶48

The material on record indicates that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.654, Navajyothi, situated at 100 feet road, 10^th 'A' main road, Binnamangala 1^st Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru. Out of the said property, the petitioner entered into a commercial lease agreement dated 11.08.2016 with the respondent for the lease of the suit schedule property i.e. located on the fourth floor for a period of 6 years by receiving a interest free security amount of Rs.18,24,000/- from the respondents. After the

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:22766 W.P. No.52962/2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

lease agreement was entered, the respondents carried out renovations on the suit schedule property, due to which the Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike (for short 'BBMP') issued a notice dated 16.11.2016 under Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, questioning the construction of the fifth floor in the said building without permission. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondents dated 21.12.2016 terminating the lease agreement and called upon the respondents to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the leased property to the petitioner. However, the respondents had abandoned the suit schedule property with half-construction and sent a legal notice to the petitioner seeking refund of security deposit and damages amounting to Rs.54,66,312/-. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.7287/2017 seeking direction to the respondents to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of property along with awarding damages for a sum of Rs.52,56,592/- with interest at

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:22766 W.P. No.52962/2019

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

18% p.a. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') seeking a direction to the respondents to make a payment of Rs.52,56,592/- towards rents and other charges and also

¶56

to pay damages at the rate of admitted rent and GST per month from 11.08.2018 till 10.03.2019 in all amounting to Rs.16,61,051/- along with interest. The Trial Court, considering the said application, proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the same on the ground that there is a serious dispute with regard to the arrears of rent and liability to pay rent, which ought to be decided during the course of trial.

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court has erroneously considered that the petitioner has violated the construction permission. A perusal of the notice issued by the BBMP clearly indicates that some structures were being built on the terrace for the fifth floor and the construction of the fifth floor was

¶58

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:22766 W.P. No.52962/2019

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

without the permission of the BBMP and was in violation of the construction permission granted. The structure on the fourth floor was placed by the respondents themselves in order to renovate the premises and the same was objected to, by the BBMP. However, it did not bring into question the existing structure upto fourth floor. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner had not violated the construction permission with regard to the existing structure and it was the structure created for the purpose of renovation by the respondents that was objected to in the notice. It is noticed that pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner got issued a notice for termination of the lease agreement and subsequently, the respondents abandoned the suit schedule property. The said abandonment of the suit schedule property with half construction and without any proper communication cannot be deemed to be handing over of possession of the property. Admittedly, the agreement of lease between the petitioner and the respondents is not in dispute. The petitioner, after the

¶61

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:22766 W.P. No.52962/2019

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

receipt of the notice by the BBMP, proceeded to issue a notice terminating the lease on 21.12.2016 and the suit schedule property was abandoned by the respondents without handing over the possession. It is also to be noticed that the respondents, in their written statement have not admitted in clear terms with regard to vacating the suit schedule property and are also disputing the termination of the tenancy by the petitioner. Hence, in view of the same, until the possession is handed over to the petitioners by the respondent by due process, there will have to be a presumption against the respondents with regard to the occupation of the suit schedule property and the respondents will be liable to pay the arrears of rent with regard to the same.

¶64

Be that as it may, the merits of the suit have to be gone into by the Trial Court by considering the evidence and the material on record. However, I am of the considered view that the respondents must be directed to deposit the arrears of rent before the Trial Court until

¶65

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:22766 W.P. No.52962/2019

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

the disposal of the suit. A perusal of the material indicates that the respondents are disputing the rent payable, arrears as claimed by the petitioner and in the absence of admitted, quantified amount, it would be difficult for this Court to direct the respondents to deposit a particular amount before the Trial Court, hence, it would be appropriate to direct the Trial Court to undertake to calculate the arrears as per the admitted lease agreement and indicate the arrears to the respondents, who shall deposit the same before the Court, within a period of two months from the date of Trial Court indicating the arrears.

¶68

For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to

¶69

pass the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

(i) The writ petition is allowed

¶72

(ii) The impugned order dated 19.09.2019 passed on I.A.No.VIII in O.S.No.7287/2017 by the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-60), is set aside.

¶73

11 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:22766 W.P. No.52962/2019

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

(iii) The Trial Court shall calculate the arrears of rent

¶77

as per the lease agreement dated 11.08.2016 for the period as prayed in the application and inform the respondents to deposit the same within a period of two months.

¶78

(iv) On such deposit of the calculated arrears of rent, the Trial Court shall invest the same in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank.

¶79

(v) The findings recorded by this Court are restricted to the adjudication of the present application and the same shall not come in the way of the Trial Court deciding the case on its merits.

¶80

No order as to costs.

¶81

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶82

RV

¶83

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Smt. Shobha Channabasavaiah v. M/S S v S Food Crafts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shobha Channabasavaiah v. M/S S v S Food Crafts

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

K Krishna Shety Vs Sri K Raghavendra Nayak

Smt. Rajeevi Vs Sri. Vinith Kumar K N

Lakshmaiah Vs Smt. Balamma

Sri Anjani Rao H Vs the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.

Mr. Abbubakkar Siddiq @ Abbubakkar Vs Sri. Y. C. Nataraj

U.M.Kiran @ Kiran Kumar Vs Sri. Manje Gowda