Speciality Restaurants Limited vs. Mr Kurien Thomas

Church Street, Bangalore; b) Declare that the Lease Agreement dated 01st August 2013 executed is valid and subsisting and in full force and effect; c) Declare as to who the Plaintiff must deposit the monthly rentals subject to receipt of valid GST compliant invoice; d) Direct either Defendant No. 1 or in the alternatively Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to enter into such documents and/or writings and/or agreement with the Plaintiff so as to ensure that the rights of the Plaintiff under the Lease Agreement dated 01st August 2013 is protected; e) Direct and declare that on termination or expiry of the Lease Agreement dated 01st August 2013, the Plaintiff will be entitled to a HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27943 refund either from Defendant No. 1 or alternatively from Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, Security Deposit amounting to Rs.1,16,25,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand only); f) Direct and declare that the Plaintiff continued to be entitled to the services related to common area maintenance and services pertaining to the Demised Premises being property bearing No. 14, (Old No. 32), in BBMP Ward No.

Church Street, Bangalore either from Defendant No. 1 or alternatively from Defendant Nos. 2 and 3; g) Declare that all amounts paid by the Plaintiff towards property taxes be adjusted from the lease rent to be paid either to Defendant No. 1 or alternatively to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3; h) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the Plaintiff to carry out renovation and interior works of the Demised Premises and direct either to Defendant No. 1 or alternatively to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to grant NOCs / sign applications and/or documents as may be required to be submitted to the various authorities; i) That the costs of this Suit be provided for; j) For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require;" HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27943

During the pendency of the suit, Defendant Nos.2 and 3 issued a termination notice dated 28.01.2025. Consequently, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No.6 seeking amendment of the plaint by inserting an additional prayer that the termination notice is not valid, the said application came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the whole dispute is with regard to the tenancy and other issues arising out of it. During the pendency of the suit, when the termination notice was issued, the court has dismissed the same on the ground that it is a different cause of action and that cannot be included in this writ petition. It is submitted that if this is not made part of the prayer of this petition, again the petitioner has to file separate suit where it is concerning between the same parties and it unnecessarily give rise to the multiplicity of proceedings and this aspect was not considered by the Court. By inserting this, the nature of the suit will not change and further the whole dispute revolves around the tenancy between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27943

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Caveator submits that the Court has rightly considered this aspect, as the suit was filed on a different cause of action. Now by inserting this relief the cause of action itself would change and it would cause prejudice to the defendants. The Court rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interference with the order impugned.

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record.

The suit is filed seeking several reliefs pertaining to the tenancy between the parties and the reliefs are running from A to J. During the pendency of the suit, the termination notice was issued. The observation of the Trial Court is that this is a separate cause of action and it would change the nature of the suit and it would cause prejudice to the defendants, cannot be sustained. In the interest of the parties and to put an end to the litigation and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is very much necessary that this IA No.6 should have been allowed by the Court. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27943

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 04.04.2026 passed on I.A. No.6 needs to be set aside.

Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed in IA No.6 in Com.O.S. No.1443/2024 on the file of the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru, dated 04.04.2026 and consequently, IA No. 6 filed by the plaintiff is allowed. ii. The petitioner shall make the necessary amendments within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. iii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed. (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE