M/S Umiya Holding Private Limited vs. M/S Sarga INDIA Company

Held

The Court partly allowed the challenge to the order dismissing the petitioner's application for a direction regarding rent payment. The Court held that the reasoning of the court below, which suggested filing a separate application in the ejectment suit, was too technical and ignored the requirement of doing justice through equitable measures. The Court found an error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, a direction was issued to the respondent-tenant to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2,36,000/- per month. Of this amount, Rs. 94,900/- (undisputed by the respondent) is to be paid directly to the petitioner-landlord, in addition to water and electricity bills, by the fifth day of each calendar month. The remaining amount is to be deposited in the court below with retrospective effect from the date of the suit's institution, to be held in trust. The Court directed the lower court to take coercive steps to enforce this, including striking off pleadings/evidence and dismissing the suit if necessary. The challenge to the order dismissing the petitioner's application for dismissal of the suit was rejected, subject to the aforementioned observations.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Umiya Holding Private Limited, a landlord and defendant in a civil suit, filed two applications in O.S.No.25315/2018. The first application (I.A.No.3) sought a direction for the respondent-tenant, M/s. Sarga India Company, to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 2,36,000/- along with water and electricity bills. The second application (I.A.No.4) sought the dismissal of the suit. Both applications were rejected by the XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. The petitioner has challenged these rejections through writ petitions before the High Court. The respondent-tenant claims to be paying Rs. 94,900/- per month, inclusive of GST, and denies being in arrears.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as the landlord and defendant in a suit for injunctive relief, is entitled to a direction for the respondent-tenant to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 2,36,000/- along with water and electricity bills, pending the disposal of the suit? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent-tenant? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the rate of rent is Rs. 2,36,000/- per month, as evidenced by the Rental Agreement dated 31.12.2012, and that the respondent is liable to pay water and electricity charges. They argue that the court below erred in rejecting their applications, particularly by taking a technical view and failing to make an equitable arrangement for rent payment pending trial. They rely on the observations in a previous order by a Co-ordinate Bench and the Supreme Court's decision in Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Sequeria Fernandes. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent-tenant argues that they have been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 94,900/- per month, which includes GST, and are not in arrears. They seek the dismissal of the writ petitions.