The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20216 W.P. No.14417/2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.14417/2020 (GM-CPC) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka BETWEEN: SMT. D.M. LATHA W/O G.S. RAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO.9, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA IST CROSS, RAJESHWARINAGAR LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560058.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. G.K. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADV.,) AND: 1. H.M. RUDRAKUMAR S/O D. MAHESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS BANASHANKARI NILAYA 2ND MAIN, GANDHINAGARA BANGALORE-560009. 2. SMT. GOWRI @ GOWRAMMA W/O H.M. RUDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.5, SRI. KALESHWARA NILAYA IST FLOOR, 12TH CROSS, NEAR NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, SHIVAPURA NELAGANDARANAHALLI, BANGALORE-73. …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADV., FOR R1 [ABSENT] SMT. HARINI, ADV., FOR SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV., FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XTH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH.26) IN OS NO.3526/2016 ON IA NO.6 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20216 W.P. No.14417/2020 HC-KAR DATED 04.03.2020 BY REJECTED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 16 READ WITH 151 OF THE CPC & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "a. Set aside the order passed by the Learned Xth Additional City Civil Sessions Judge at Bangalore.(CCH.26) in O.S.No.3526/2016 on I.A.No.6 Dated 04.03.2020 by rejected under Order VI Rule 16 read with 151 of the CPC. Annexure-A. I.A.No.6 Filed by the petitioner and grant such other relief in the interest of justice and equity." 2. 3. Heard. Sri.G.K.Shiva Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed O.S.No.3526/2016 before the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short, 'the trial Court') against the respondents-defendants seeking the judgment and decree against the respondents to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner and further prayer to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.90,000/- and damages of Rs.15,000/- from the date of suit - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20216 W.P. No.14417/2020 HC-KAR till they vacate and handover the vacant possession. It is submitted that the respondents have filed a written statement denying the claim of the petitioner. In the said suit, petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking prayer to strike out the defence set out by the respondents-defendants on account of their failure to pay rent and damages. However, the trial Court, without appreciating the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property and the respondents being the tenants, have not paid the rent from the inception, ought to have allowed the said application by striking out the defence available to them. It is also submitted that respondent Nos.1 & 2 are the husband and wife and there appears to be some matrimonial dispute and in the garb of said dispute, the respondent No.2 is squatting over the property without paying the rents. However, the trial Court has failed to appreciate these aspects and rejected the applications. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order by striking out the defence of the respondents. 4. Per contra, Smt.Harini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.R.B.Sadashivappa, learned counsel for the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20216 W.P. No.14417/2020 HC-KAR respondent No.2 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents is a collusive suit, the petitioner is none other than the sister of respondent No.1 and when the matrimonial dispute arose between the respondents, the respondent No.1 has executed the gift deed in favour of the petitioner to deprive the shelter and right of respondent No.2 and the said gift deed was under challenge before the suit, which came to be dismissed and now the appeal is pending and the interim order is operating. She further adds that the trial Court has clearly recorded the finding that the suit is a collusive suit, hence, there cannot be any striking of defence for non payment of rents as there is no jural relationship established between the petitioner and respondents in the suit. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of both side and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.3526/2016 seeking the relief of handing over vacant possession of the suit schedule property, arrears of rent and damages against the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20216 W.P. No.14417/2020 HC-KAR respondents. The suit is filed on the premise that the petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the said ownership was acquired based on the gift deed dated 19.07.2013 executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner. The averments made in the plaint indicate that the petitioner and respondent No.1 entered into a rental agreement dated 01.02.2015 initially for a period of eleven (11) months and claimed that the same was renewed; however, no rents have been paid from inception. The pleading and material on record clearly indicates that there is a matrimonial dispute between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, who are the husband and wife, and the trial Court has rightly recorded prima-facie finding that to overcome the said dispute, the gift deed is executed in favour of the petitioner. There is no doubt that the aforesaid finding is only a prima-facie finding to decide the dispute between the parties as the validity of the gift deed is the subject matter in the pending appeal before this Court, hence, it is not necessary to record any finding with regard to execution of the gift deed by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner. Order VI Rule 16 of CPC provides for striking out the pleading, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, order - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20216 W.P. No.14417/2020 HC-KAR to strike out or amend any matter in pleading under three circumstances referred in Order VI Rule 16 of CPC. Non payment of rent, in the absence of any specific direction from the jurisdictional Court to pay rent cannot be a ground to strike out the defence as claimed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the issue with regard to jural relationship and payment of rent is seriously disputed by respondent No.2 herein. When things stood thus, the petitioner cannot seek for striking out the defence. The trial Court, considering the law on the point, has recorded the clear finding that the application is devoid of merits and dismissed. I do not find any reason or error in the impugned order of the trial Court calling for interference in this petition. For the aforementioned reasons, petition is devoid of merits, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48