SMT. K KEERTHI vs SRI. KUSHAL RAJ OSTWAL
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1729 OF 2026 (RES)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1730 OF 2026 (RES)
IN RFA No. 1729/2026
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. K KEERTHI
W/O MR. V. VINOD KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT OLD NO.30,
RD
NEW NO.7, 3 CROSS, VICTORIA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU – 560 047.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJESH D M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KUSHAL RAJ OSTWAL
S/O BHAWARLAL OSTWAL,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ND
R/AT NO.88, 2 CROSS,
BEHIND INDIA GARAGE, VICTORIA LAYOUT,
VIVEKNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 047.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
Digitally
signed by N
UMA
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI
RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 01.07.2026 PASSED IN O.S NO.6171/2019 ON THE FILE
OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY AND ETC.,
IN RFA NO. 1730/2026
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. K KEERTHI
W/O MR. V. VINOD KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT OLD NO.30,
RD
NEW NO.7, 3 CROSS,
VICTORIA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU – 560 047.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJESH D M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KUSHAL RAJ OSTWAL
S/O BHAWARLAL OSTWAL,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ND
R/AT NO.88, 2 CROSS,
BEHIND INDIA GARAGE,
VICTORIA LAYOUT, VIVEKNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR M, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER
XLI RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 01.07.2026 PASSED IN O.S NO.6171/2019
ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
These Regular First Appeals are filed by the
appellant/ defendant calling in question the judgment and
decree dated 01.07.2026 passed in O.S No.6171/2019 by
the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH-23), whereby the suit filed for ejectment
was decreed directing the defendant to vacate and hand
over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to
the plaintiff within the period of three months from the
date of the judgment.
2. RFA No.1729/2029 is filed by the
appellant/defendant seeking to set aside the judgment
and decree insofar as partly decreeing the suit and RFA
No.1730/2026 is filed challenging the non-consideration of
the counterclaim raised by the appellant/defendant.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
3. For the sake of convenience and easy
reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings
before the Trial Court.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit property having purchased the same
from his vendor, M.R.Narendra Babu under the registered
sale deed dated 22.08.2016. At the time of purchase of
the schedule property, the vendor of the plaintiff had
executed rent agreement with the defendant. Therefore,
the defendant was a tenant under the vendor of the
plaintiff. Even after selling the property to the plaintiff,
the defendant continued to remain in possession of the
suit schedule property.
5. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that the
defendant being the tenant has failed to pay the rent
amount, therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for
ejectment.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
6. The defendant appeared through her Advocate
and filed written statement contending that there was
Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.07.2016 between
the vendor of the plaintiff and the defendant prior to the
execution of the sale deed.
7. It is the case of the defendant that there was
an understanding in the Memorandum of Understanding
that the vendor of the plaintiff shall refund the advance
amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the defendant, upon which
the defendant would vacate the suit premises. Since the
vendor of the plaintiff has not repaid the advance amount
of Rs.15,00,000/- to the defendant, therefore, the
defendant continued to be in possession of the suit
schedule property. Therefore, the defendant prays to
dismiss the suit.
8. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the
Trial Court framed the following issues:
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant
is a tenant in occupation of the suit schedule
property under his Vendor by virtue of Rent
Agreement dated 16.11.2014?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that before the
alienation of the suit schedule property to him
under Sale Deed dated 22.08.2016, there was
an understanding between Vendor and the
defendant by virtue of Memorandum of
Understanding dated 19.07.2016?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that as has been
agreed, the defendant has failed to vacate and
hand over vacant possession of the suit
schedule property to him?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant
is due a sum of Rs.4,42,821/- towards arrears
of rent and Rs.1,00,000/- towards water
charges to BWSSB?
5. Whether the defendant proves that Vendor of
the plaintiff/landlord M.R.Narendra Babu had
issued a cheque in favour of her husband in
respect of hand loan borrowed by him to the
tune of Rs.8,00,000/-?
6. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff
had agreed to repay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to
her?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant
possession of the suit schedule property and
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
arrears of rent and damages to the tune of
Rs.50,000/- per month?
8. Whether the defendant is entitled to recover
advance deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- from the
plaintiff?
9. What Decree or Order?
9. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and
produced documentary evidence and got them marked as
Exs.P1 to P10. The defendant examined herself as D.W.1
and produced documentary evidence and got them
marked as D1 to D4.
10. The Trial Court has decreed the suit directing
the defendant to vacate and handover vacant possession
of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The Trial
Court has observed that, since the vendor of the plaintiff
has received the amount, it is the obligation of the vendor
of the plaintiff to repay the said advance amount, but not
by plaintiff, as there is no landlord and tenant relationship
between the plaintiff and defendant. But the defendant
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property
and has not paid any rent. Therefore, the Trial Court
decreed the suit by granting decree for recovery of arrears
of rent from the defendant from 19.07.2016 till September
2026 at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month.
11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court, the appellant/defendant has
filed this appeal by raising various grounds and the
learned counsel for the appellant, in consonance with the
grounds urged has submitted that, the Trial Court has held
that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant
between the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, the
suit filed for ejectment is not maintainable. Hence, the
learned counsel prays for interference with the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court.
12. It is further submitted that, if the defendant is
made to vacate the suit premises, then the defendant will
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
not get refund amount of Rs.15,00,000/- paid to the
vendor of the plaintiff. Therefore, unless the vendor of the
plaintiff refunds the said amount to the defendant, the
possession rights of the defendant would be affected.
Therefore, learned counsel prays to interfere with the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has not
received the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the
defendant. It is obligation on the part of the vendor of the
plaintiff to refund the amount but not by the plaintiff. In
this regard, the defendant has already initiated the money
recovery proceedings against the vendor of plaintiff, which
is pending. Therefore, after purchasing the property from
the vendor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff became owner of
the property and is entitled for possession. Hence, the
learned counsel justified the judgment and decree passed
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
by the Trial Court and prays to dismiss the appeals filed by
the defendant.
14. Upon considering the arguments of learned
counsel appearing for both the parties and also perused
the records, the following points arise for my
consideration:
i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances
involved in the case, the Trial Court is correct in
granting decree for eviction directing the
defendant to hand over vacant possession of the
suit schedule property to the plaintiff?
ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances
involved in the case, the Trial Court is correct in
granting decree for arrears of rent to the plaintiff
in absence of jural relationship of landlord and
tenant between the plaintiff and defendant?
iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court requires interference by this Court?
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
15. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff is the
owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the
same under the registered sale deed dated 22.08.2016.
The defendant was a tenant under the vendor of the
plaintiff. There was a jural relationship of landlord and
tenant between the vendor of the plaintiff and defendant.
When the defendant was a tenant and was in possession
of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff purchased the
same from the vendor of the plaintiff who was the landlord
of the defendant. Therefore, there is no jural relationship
of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant.
16. There was a Memorandum of Understanding as
per Ex.P6 dated 19.07.2016 to continue the defendant as
a tenant for 45 days from the date of the sale deed and it
was also a clause in the said Memorandum of
Understanding that the vendor of the plaintiff shall refund
the advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the defendant.
But thereafter, the vendor of the plaintiff has not repaid
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
the said amount to the defendant. Therefore, the
defendant has continued in possession of the suit schedule
property.
17. It is the grievance of the defendant that unless
the vendor of the plaintiff pays Rs,15,00,000/- to the
defendant, she will not vacate the suit premises,
therefore, claiming possession over the property.
Admittedly, the defendant has not paid the said amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff. The Trial Court is correct
in holding that there is no jural relationship of landlord and
tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. When this is
the finding given by the Trial Court that the defendant is
not a tenant under the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has
permitted the defendant to continue her possession,
therefore, the possession of the defendant has become
permissive possession, as permitted by the plaintiff. When
these facts establish that the plaintiff is the owner of the
suit schedule property and the defendant is not a tenant
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
but is in permissive possession of the property as
permitted by the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled
to recovery of possession of suit property from the
defendant. To this extent, the Trial Court is correct in
decreeing the suit.
18. But, when such findings of the facts are proved
that the defendant is not tenant under the plaintiff,
therefore, decreeing the suit for rent amount is not
correct. The defendant may be a tenant under the vendor
of the plaintiff but not tenant under the plaintiff.
Therefore, granting a decree for recovery of arrears of rent
amount is not correct. What the plaintiff should have
claimed is for damages or mense profits, but the plaintiff
has not claimed the said relief in the plaint. Also, the
learned counsel for respondent / plaintiff admitted that
such relief of damages was not claimed in the suit.
Therefore, in this regard, when there is no jural
relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
and defendant, decreeing the suit for arrears of rent
amount is not correct. Therefore, to this extent, the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to
be interfered with. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
affirmative , point No.2 in the negative and point No.3 in
the partly affirmative .
19. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Regular First Appeals are allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and decree dated 01.07.2026
passed in O.S No.6171/2019 by the XXV
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH-23), insofar as decreeing the suit
directing the defendant to vacate and hand over
vacant possession to the plaintiff, is confirmed.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54045
RFA No. 1729 of 2026
C/W RFA No. 1730 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010604052026
iii) The judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court is set aside, insofar as granting decree for
recovery of arrears of rent amount to the plaintiff.
iv) Draw modified decree accordingly.
v) No costs.
vi) The appellant/defendant is permitted to hand over
vacant possession of suit schedule property along
with furnitures and dining table, to the plaintiff
within a period of four months from today.
The appellant/defendant shall file an affidavit of
undertaking in this regard before this Court within a
period of three weeks from today.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
UN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25