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

Held

The High Court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application for a direction to pay rent at the asserted rate. The court found that while the dispute over the exact rent rate needs to be determined after trial, an equitable arrangement is necessary pending the suit. The court directed the respondent-tenant to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 2,36,000/-. Of this amount, Rs. 94,900/- (which is not disputed) 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 for the successful party. The court also stated that the lower court should take coercive steps to enforce this direction, including striking off the respondent's pleadings/evidence and potentially dismissing the suit. The writ petition challenging the dismissal of the suit application was rejected, subject to these observations.

Facts

M/s. Umiya Holding Private Limited (petitioner-landlord) and M/s. Sarga India Company (respondent-tenant) are involved in a civil dispute over rent. The petitioner, a real estate developer, is the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent for injunctive relief. The petitioner filed two applications in the suit, seeking a direction for the respondent to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 2,36,000/- along with water and electricity bills, and also seeking dismissal of the suit. Both applications were rejected by the XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore. The petitioner has challenged these orders through two writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka. The respondent contends they have been paying Rs. 94,900/- per month, inclusive of GST, excluding water/electricity charges, and are not in arrears.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner-landlord 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 for injunctive relief filed by the tenant? 2. Whether the petitioner-landlord is entitled to the dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent-tenant? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the monthly rent is Rs. 2,36,000/- and the respondent is liable to pay water and electricity charges, as prima facie substantiated by the Rental Agreement dated 31.12.2012. They argue that the lower court erred in dismissing their applications, as it failed to make an equitable arrangement for rent payment pending the suit and ignored the pragmatic realities of the situation, citing the Supreme Court's observations in Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Sequeria Fernandes. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argues that they have been paying Rs. 94,900/- per month, which includes GST and excludes water/electricity charges, and are not in arrears of rent. They seek dismissal of the writ petitions.