Facts of the Case

This is a landlord-tenant dispute under the Code of Civil Procedure — not a GST case. The petitioner, Smt. Shobha Channabasavaiah, had leased commercial premises on the fourth floor of her building to the respondent firm, M/s S.V.S. Food Crafts. After the respondents allegedly carried out unauthorised construction (leading to a BBMP notice) and subsequently abandoned the premises mid-renovation without formally handing over possession, the petitioner filed a civil suit for eviction and a money decree, along with an application seeking a direction that the respondents deposit arrears of rent — including 'GST per month' as part of the admitted rent structure — pending disposal of the suit. The trial court dismissed this application, holding the rent liability itself was seriously disputed and best decided at trial; the petitioner filed this writ petition against that order.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to direct the respondents to deposit arrears of rent (including the GST component) pending disposal of the suit.
  2. Whether the respondents' abandonment of the premises, without formal handover, discharged their obligation to pay rent.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The trial court wrongly attributed a construction violation to her, when the BBMP notice actually concerned unauthorised renovation carried out by the tenants themselves on the leased floor.
  • Mere abandonment of the property, without formally handing back possession, could not exonerate the tenants from their obligation to pay rent until possession was properly restored.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondents (2 to 4) did not appear or file any response despite service.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that the unauthorised fifth-floor construction flagged by the BBMP notice was carried out by the tenants during renovation, and did not implicate the landlord's existing fourth-floor structure.
  • It held that the tenants' abandonment of the premises mid-construction, without any proper handover of possession, could not be treated as relinquishing possession, and a presumption of continued occupation — and consequent liability for rent — operated against them.
  • The Court set aside the trial court's order and directed the trial court itself to calculate the arrears of rent as per the admitted lease agreement, communicate the figure to the respondents, and require them to deposit the calculated arrears (to be placed in a fixed deposit) within two months — expressly clarifying that these findings were limited to the interim application and would not bind the trial court's final decision on merits.

Important Clarification

This order concerns interim deposit of disputed rent arrears in a civil tenancy suit — GST is referenced only because it formed part of the periodic rent figure the landlord claimed, and the ruling does not decide any GST law question.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India — Article 227
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 151
  • Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 — Section 308 (background fact only)

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the petitioner-landlord to the extent of directing deposit of calculated arrears pending trial; the underlying tenancy/eviction dispute remains to be decided on merits. Not a GST ruling.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 52962/2019 (GM-CPC)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil
Date of Judgment: 25 April 2026

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.