SRI VINAY RAMAN vs SMT LAKSHMAMMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO. 21550 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VINAY RAMAN
S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO,
AGED 51 YEARS,
RUNNING CAR GARAGE NO.56/5,
WESTERN PORTION OF D,
ST TH
1 BLOCK, 9 CROSS,
ST
JP NAGAR, 1 PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 078.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESH.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE KADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
2. SRI. K.SIDDEGOWDA
S/O LATE KADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
BOTH RA/T NO.556,
TH TH
14 MAIN ROAD, 10 CROSS,
PADMANABHANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 070.
3. SMT. K.PUTTATHEYAMMA
W/O LATE B.T.GOWDAIAH,
D/O LATE KADEGOWDA,
Digitally signed
by JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THOREBOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHIKKA ARASINAKERE HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK-571 422
MANDYA DISTRICT
4. SMT. PUTAMMANNI
W/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA,
D/O LATE KADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 14/56,
ST
1 CROSS, 80 FEET ROAD,
BHUVANESWARINAGAR,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 085.
5. SRI. K.SHIVANNA
S/O LATE KADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ANNUR VILLAGE,
CHIKKA ARASINAKERE HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA-571 422.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH.K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 20.07.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE
(CCH-62) ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO. 563/2022 VIDE ANNX-A AND
ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION BY REJECTING THE I.A.NO.2.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
1. The challenge in the present petition is to an order
dated 20.07.2024, passed by the LXI Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore (CCH-62) on I.A. No.2 in
O.S.No.563/2022 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned
Order’]. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court
partly allowed I.A.No.2 filed under Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the
‘CPC’] and directed the petitioner/defendant to deposit
Rs.20,88,097/- towards arrears of rent for three years
preceding the suit, till the date of the application, within one
month, failing which his defence in the written statement
would stand struck off.
2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of this
petition are that the petitioner/defendant is in occupation of
the schedule property pursuant to a tenancy arrangement.
The respondents/plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.563/2022
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
seeking ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne
profits. During the pendency of the suit, I.A. No.2 was filed
under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
seeking payment of arrears of rent. By the Impugned Order
dated 20.07.2024, the learned Trial Court partly allowed the
application and directed the petitioner/defendant to deposit
Rs.20,88,097/- towards arrears of rent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits
that the petitioner has already made payment of an amount
of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs) and that this
amount has not been adjusted while calculating the
amounts payable, as has been directed in the Impugned
Order. It is the case of the petitioner that the tenancy was
terminated/expired by efflux of time on 31.12.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant further
submits that he has filed a suit being O.S.No.4337/2021.
4. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Trial
Court has wrongly found that there is an admission made
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
by the petitioner/defendant before the Court. Reliance in
this regard is also placed on a judgment of a Division Bench
of this Court in the case of M/s. Manipal Energy And
Infratech Limited vs. M/s.Sri.Krishna Shelter Private
1
Limited which has held that in order to attract these
provisions, there has to be an admission by a party to the
suit he owes the money as a Trustee to another party or
there has to be an admission that money belongs to or is
due to another party. However, there is no such admission
in this matter despite which the Impugned Order has been
passed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs on the
other hand submits that the petitioner/defendant has been
in occupation of the schedule property since the year
November 2011. He submits that a suit was filed by the
respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant being
O.S.No.563/2022 before the learned Trial Court seeking
1
COMAP.No.21/2019, dtd.31.10.2019
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
ejectment, as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and
mesne profits in relation to the property bearing No.56/5,
th st
9 Cross, J.P. Nagar, 1 Phase, Bengaluru – 560 078
[hereinafter referred to as the “tenanted property”]. It is
the further case of the respondents/plaintiffs that the
petitioner/defendant is liable to pay arrears of rent for the
period from December 2011 till date as has been set out in
the plaint. Reliance in this behalf is placed on the plaint
annexed as Annexure-B, to this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs further
submits that the Impugned Order does not suffer from any
infirmity. He relies upon the admissions made by the
petitioner/defendant in the written statement filed in
O.S.No.563/2022 regarding the 10% escalation clause in
the tenancy agreement and submits that the learned Trial
Court has correctly calculated the arrears of rent, while
passing the Impugned Order. Reliance is placed in this
behalf by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
on the calculation sheet, which forms part of his plaint and
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
which has been reproduced by the learned Trial Court in the
Impugned Order.
7. Learned counsel further relies upon O.S.No.120/2015
[hereinafter referred to as the ‘first suit’], which has been
filed by the petitioner/defendant against respondent No.2
seeking an injunction against dispossession of the tenanted
property, wherein another admission was made with
respect to the payments of rental as Rs.15,000/- per month
with a 10% annual increase. Paragraph 7 of plaint in
O.S.No.120/2015 filed by the petitioners against the second
respondent is extracted below:
“7. It is submitted that, on December 2010, the said Kade
Gowda approached plaintiff and requested him to pay a
further advance sum of Rs.9,00,000-00 towards
additional security deposit amount and further
agreed to take Rs.15,000-00 P.M as rent which is
increasable by 10% every year and accordingly the
plaintiff paid further sum of Rs.9,00,000-00
towards the advance security deposit and thus in all
the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000-00
(Rupees eleven lakhs only) towards the security
deposit of advance amount to the said Kade Gowda
which is payable to the plaintiff after the expiry of
lease period. And accordingly plaintiff and Kadegowda
have entered into a fresh rental agreement on
26/12/2010 (since at that time the plaintiff only was
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
looking after the entire business he only has entered into
an agreement). The copy of the rental agreement
dated 26/12/2010 is herewith produced at
ANNEXURE 'G' for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble
court. It is submitted that, after the expiry of 11
months, both Kade Gowda and plaintiff has orally
extended the rental agreement from time to time. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
7.1 Subsequently, the second suit was filed by the
petitioner against the respondent No.2 seeking to restrain
the respondent No.2 from dispossessing the plaintiff from
suit schedule property.
8. An examination of the record reflects that a suit being
O.S.No.563 of 2022, was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs
against the petitioner/defendant seeking ejectment,
delivery of vacant possession and for payment of arrears of
rent and damages / mesne profits. The prayers in the plaint
are set out below:
“WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs prays that this Hon’ble Court be
pleased to:
a. Pass a Judgment and Decree directing the Defendant to
quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit
schedule property to the Plaintiffs;
b. Pass a Judgment and Decree directing the Defendant to
pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.23,76,000/- for 3
8
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
years immediately prior to filing of this suit as per the terms
of the rental agreement dated 10.08.2008.
c. Award damages for the illegal occupation of the schedule
premises from 01.01.2022 till he vacates and hand over the
vacant possession of the schedule premises; and
d. Grant such other relief or reliefs as his Hon’ble Court
deems fit in the facts and the circumstances of the case.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the Vacant site No.56/5
th
(Western Portion of ‘D’ of 1 Block), 9 Cross, J.P. Nagar,
st
1 Phase, Bengaluru 560 078, Corporation Ward No.57,
measuring East to West 88 Feet and North to South on
Eastern side 40 feet, totally measuring 3916 Square feet
and bounded on:
East by : Road
West by : Road
North by : Shankambari Pvt. Layout
th
South by : 9 Cross Road”
8.1. The respondents/plaintiffs filed an application under
Section 151 of the CPC, which sets out that the
petitioner/defendant be directed to pay arrears of rent at
the rate of Rs.23,76,000/- for the three years immediately
prior to the institution of the suit. The relevant extract of
the application and the affidavit are set out below:
“ Application under Section 151 of CPC
That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit
the plaintiffs in the above case pray that this hon’ble
Court be pleased to direct the defendant to deposit
the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.23,76,000/- for
9
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
three years immediate prior to institution of suit till
today in the interest of justice and equity.
AFFIDAVIT
xxx xxx xxx
4. I further submit that, we had requested the defendant
to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the
schedule property and also to pay the arrears of rent. But
the defendant instead of vacating the schedule
property, he has filed a false suit in O.S.No.120/2015
for injunction against us, which came to be
dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.11.2016.
Thereafter, he had filed another suit in
O.S.No.4337/2021 for permanent injunction
restraining us from dispossessing him from the
schedule property suppressing the earlier suit and
also suppressing the arrears of rent. Thereafter, we
have terminated the tenancy of the defendant with
respect to the schedule property w.e.f. 31.12.2021
and called upon him to pay the arrears of rent. But
still he has not vacated the schedule property nor
paid the arrears of rent.
5. I further submit that under the aforesaid circumstances,
we have filed the above suit for ejectment and for
recovery of arrears of rent. While filing the suit we
have restricted the arrears of rent for three years, in
all amounting to Rs.23,76,000/-, since the delay may
come in the way of recovery of arrears of rent from
the month of December, 2011.
6. I further submit that, even after institution of the
suit, the defendant has not paid the rent nor
deposited the same before this Hon'ble Court. The
defendant cannot continue in the schedule property
without paying arrears of rent and without paying
the rent regularly. Under these circumstances, it is just
and necessary to direct the Defendant to deposit the
arrears of rent. Hence the accompanying application.
[Emphasis Supplied]
10
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
9. The written statement filed by the
petitioner/defendant in this suit (O.S.No.563/2022) on
which the learned Trial Court has relied on, references an
admission on the part of the petitioner/defendant that since
amounts were paid by the petitioner/defendant, the rental
was reduced from Rs.36,300/- to Rs.15,000/- per month.
The relevant extract of the written statement is set out
below:
“5. The averments and allegation made in para 4 of the
plaint that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs and they become
the full and absolute owners of the suit schedule property
after the death of the Sri.Kadegowda is incorrect and same
is hereby denied as false baseless and far from truth. It is
submitted during lifetime of Kadegowda entire rent
was paid and prior there was a fresh rental
agreement between late Sri.Kadegowda and this
defendants under the said rental agreement dated
26/12/2010 the deceased Kadegowda has received
a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as additional advance in all a
sum of Rs.11,00,000/- was paid and fresh rental
agreement was executed by Kadegowda on 26/12/2010
since the more advance was paid rent was reduced
from 36,300/- to 15,000/- for month, the defendant
further submit in order to run car garage, car resale and
servicing etc., the defendant has spent more then
15,00,000/- over the suit schedule property. The
plaintiffs are no way concern with the suit schedule
property they have no manner of right, title and
interest over the suit schedule property the plaintiffs
has strangers to suit schedule property and the defendant
herein and this defendant is otherwise the owner of the
schedule property by way of adverse possession.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
11
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
10. The Impugned Order however relies on the terms of
an unregistered lease agreement dated 26.12.2010
executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and
the extension clause therein which enhances the rent by
10%. It has further been held in the Impugned Order that
since the defendant relies upon the lease agreement dated
26.12.2010, he is bound to pay the arrears as enhanced
each year from 2010 onwards. Subsequently, a calculation
of arrears of rent is undertaken by the learned Trial Court.
The relevant extract Impugned Order is below:
“9. Secondly defendant has produced copy of lease
deed said to have been executed by deceased Kadegowda
on 26.12.2010, wherein it is averred that Kadegowda had
received 11 lakhs from plaintiff and he has reduced
monthly rent of suit schedule property from Rs.36,300/- to
Rs.15,000/-. Mostly importantly clause 13 of said
agreement clearly shows that duration of said rental
agreement was 11 months and same can be further
extended on same terms with increase of rent by 10%.
However, the plaintiffs claim that last paid rent of the suit
property as on November 2011 was Rs.36,300/-, which is
almost doubled to Rs.69,000/- per month as on the date of
the suit. Hence, by calculating rent at the rate of
Rs.63,000/-, 66,000/- and 69,000/- for last three years,
they have claimed arrears of rent of Rs.23,76,000/-.
10. Hence on perusal of pleadings and contentions raised
by both parties, it clearly shows that the plaintiffs have
12
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
stepped into shoes of Kadegowda to claim rent of suit
schedule property from defendant. Whether defendant is
liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs.63,000/-, 66,000/- and
69,000/- for last three years or whether he is liable to pay
rent as per rent agreement dated 26.12.2010 relied
upon by him has to be decided after full-fledged trial.
11. However when defendant relies upon aforesaid
agreement dated 26.10.2010, he is bound to pay
arrears of rent to the plaintiffs as per his own
calculation in pursuant to aforesaid rent agreement
relied upon by him, till final adjudication of the case.
Further till today nothing is placed by defendant to prove
payment of arrears of rent from November 2011 and as per
aforesaid lease agreement produced by defendant himself,
the rent at the enhanced rate of 10% per year has to be
calculated as under:
Period Rent + 10%
enhancement + Total
rent
26.12.2010 to 25.12.2011 - 15,000
26.12.2011 to 25.12.2012 - 15,000 + 1,500=16,500
26.12.2012 to 25.12.2013 - 16,500 + 1,650=18,150
26.12.2013 to 25.12.2014 - 18,150 + 1,815=19,965
26.12.2014 to 25.12.2015 - 19,965 + 1,997=21,962
26.12.2015 to 25.12.2016 - 21,962 + 2,196=24,158
26.12.2016 to 25.12.2017 - 24,158 + 2,416=26,574
26.12.2017 to 25.12.2018 - 26,574 + 2,657=29,231
26.12.2018 to 25.12.2019 - 29,231 + 2,923=32,154
26.12.2019 to 25.12.2020 - 32,154 + 3,215=35,369
26.12.2020 to 25.12.2021 - 35,369 + 3,537=38,906
26.12.2021 to 25.12.2022 - 38,906 + 3,891=42,797
26.12.2022 to 25.12.2023 - 42,797 + 4,280=47,077
12. The present suit is filed on 24.01.2022 and I.A.No.2
is filed on 05.08.2023 . Hence as per aforesaid table the
defendant is liable to pay rent from last three years
from the date of suit till 05.08.2023 i.e., from
24.01.2019 till 05.08.2023. Hence defendant is liable
to pay rent at the rate of Rs.32,154/- for 11 months
i.e., from 24.01.2019 to 24.12.2019, which amounts to
13
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
Rs.3,53,694/-. He is liable to pay rent at the rate of
Rs.35,369/- for 12 months i.e., from 24.12.2019 to
23.12.2020, which amounts to Rs.4,24,428/-. He is liable
to pay rent at the rate of Rs.38,906/- for 12 months i.e.,
from 24.12.2020 to 23.12.2021, which amounts to
Rs.4,66,872/-. Further he is liable to pay rent from
24.12.2021 to 24.12.2022 for 12 months at the rate of
Rs.42,797/-, which amounts to Rs.5,13,564/- and he is
finally liable to pay rent from 24.12.2022 to 24.07.2023
i.e. for 7 months at the rate of 47,077/- which amounts to
Rs.3,29,539/-. Hence defendant is liable to pay in all Rs.
20,88,097/- to plaintiffs towards rent admitted by him
for last preceding three years of filing of the suit till
filing of present application. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. It is the undisputed fact that the trial in the matter is
yet to take place. In the absence of any clear admission in
respect of 10% escalation as available in the written
statement, and without conducting a trial, the learned Trial
Court has calculated arrears of rent, which order cannot be
sustained.
12. In a suit for ejectment, a plaintiff may file an
application seeking arrears of rent/mesne profits by
invoking Order 39, Rule 10 of the CPC, which reads as
follows:
“10. Deposit of money, etc., in Court — Where the subject-
matter of a suit is money or some other thing capable of
14
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
delivery and any party thereto admits that he holds such
money or other thing as a trustee for another party, or that
it belongs or is due to another party, the Court may order
the same to be deposited in Court or delivered to such last-
named party, with or without security, subject to the
further direction of the Court.”
13. Such an application may also be filed under the
provisions of Order 12, Rule 6 of the CPC relying on
admissions made by the defendant in the suit; seeking a
judgment on admission in terms of the provision. The Order
12, Rule 6 of the CPC is set out below:
“6. Judgment on admissions -
(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in
the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the
Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the
application of any party or of its own motion and without
waiting for the determination of any other question
between the parties, make such order or give such
judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such
admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule
(1) a decree shall be drawn upon in accordance with the
judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the
judgment was pronounced.”
13.1 The Supreme Court in the case of Karan Kapoor vs.
2
Madhuri Kumar , while discussing the purport of these
2
Civil Appeal No.4645/2022
15
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
provisions has held that admissions must be clear,
unequivocal and categorical.
14. This has however not been done by the
respondent/plaintiff. Instead it choose to invoke the
provisions of Section 151 of the CPC seeking payment of
arrears. The averments made by the petitioner is that no
amount is due as arrears as Rs.11,00,000/- towards
security deposit/advance has been paid by cash. Whereas
the averment made by the respondent/plaintiff is that the
admitted rental amount is to be calculated not at
Rs.15,000/-, but an amount which is enhanced by 10%
every year, as per the escalation clause that is available in
the tenancy agreement.
15. It is also not disputed that the tenancy agreement is
not a registered document. Thus, the recitals of the lease
agreement cannot be relied upon and the lease agreement
can only be used for collateral purpose. The Supreme Court
in K.B.Saha and Sons Private Limited Vs. Development
16
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
3
Consultant Limited while explaining this has held as
under:
“34. From the principles laid down in the various decisions
of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to
hereinabove, it is evident that:
1. A document required to be registered, if
unregistered is not admissible into evidence
under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
2. Such unregistered document can however be
used as an evidence of collateral purpose as
provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the
Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent
of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect
which the law required registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction
not itself required to be effected by a registered
document, that is, a transaction creating, etc.
any right, title or interest in immovable property
of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for
want of registration, none of its terms can be
admitted in evidence and that to use a document
for the purpose of proving an important clause
would not be using it as a collateral purpose .”
35. In our view, the particular clause in the lease
agreement in question cannot be called a collateral
purpose. As noted earlier, it is the case of the appellant
that the suit premises were let out only for the particular
named officer of the respondent and accordingly, after the
same was vacated by the said officer, the respondent was
not entitled to allot it to any other employee and was
3
(2008) SCC 564
17
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
therefore, liable to be evicted which, in our view, was an
important term forming part of the lease
agreement. Therefore, such a clause, namely,
Clause 9 of the lease agreement in this case, cannot
be looked into even for collateral purposes to come
to a conclusion that the respondent was liable to be
evicted because of violation of Clause 9 of the lease
agreement. That being the position, we are unable to
hold that Clause 9 of the lease agreement, which is
admittedly unregistered, can be looked into for the
purpose of evicting the respondent from the suit premises
only because the respondent was not entitled to induct
any other person other than the named officer in the
same”.
[Emphasis Supplied]
15.1 A similar View has been taken by the Supreme Court
in Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit
4
Chand Mitra and another wherein it has been held that
the purpose of lease is a core term of contact and not
collateral purpose and it cannot be proved using
unregistered lease deed. The relevant extract is set out
below:
“15. The appellant has argued that the trial court had
admitted the lease agreement in evidence, and for
determining the purpose of lease, we can examine the
deed. But this argument is flawed. This provision
contemplates lease for manufacturing purpose, in
absence of contract or local law to the contrary, shall be
deemed to be year-to-year lease. In that case, it would
require six months' notice for termination. But here,
4
2024 (13) SCC 219
18
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
the agreement itself provides a five-year duration,
and hence ex facie becomes a document that
requires compulsory registration. That is the
mandate of Section 107 of the 1882 Act and Sections 17
and 49 of the 1908 Act. The Court cannot admit it in
evidence, as per the judgment in Anthony². A coordinate
Bench in Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad has
reaffirmed this view, referring to Section 49 of the
Registration Act. This is a prohibition for the Court
to implement and even if the trial court has taken
it in evidence, the same cannot confer legitimacy
to that document for being taken as evidence at
the appellate stage. The parties cannot by implied
consent confer upon such document its
admissibility. It is not in dispute in this case that the
period between service of notice and institution of the
suit fell short by four days of completion of six months.
In any case, we do not consider it necessary to address
this question as in our opinion, the requirement to give
six months' notice does not arise in this case. The point
has not been raised before us.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
16. Given that the admission of the respondent in both the
pleadings placed on record is with respect to a payment of
Rs.15,000/-, the learned Trial Court in the first instance
could have only directed arrears in the sum of Rs.15,000/-
for a period of 36 months. However, the remaining arrears
and the calculations thereof would require to be proved by
trial.
17. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is set aside. The
admitted rental amount of Rs.15,000/- per month for a
19
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55961
WP No. 21550 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010443652024
period of 36 months, totaling to Rs.5,40,000/- shall be paid
by the petitioner/defendant within six weeks from today.
18. The petition is disposed of in the foregoing terms. All
pending applications stand closed.
19. It is made clear that the order passed today is passed
with respect to the application (I.A.No.2) alone. The
respondent is at liberty to file an appropriate application, in
accordance with law, with respect to any other
arrears/amounts due.
20. The rights and contentions of both parties are kept
open to be agitated before the learned Trial Court.
Digitally signed by TARA
VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
JJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
20