Bangalore District Court
Venkatramanappa vs Ovation Badminton Centre on 14 November, 2025
1
COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023
KABC170008312023
IN THE COURT OF LXXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT (CCH-88)
BENGALURU.
DATED ON THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
PRESENT : SRI.C.D.KAROSHI, B.A., LL.M.,
LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
COM.O.S.382/2023
PLAINTIFFS : 1 VENKATRAMANAPPA
S/o Late Sonnappa
Aged about 77 years
R/at No.70, Vinayaka Layout, 3rd
Cross, 1st Main, Hebbal Kempapura,
Bengaluru - 560 024.
2 VENKATE GOWDA
S/o Venkatramanappa
Aged about 46 years
R/at No.70, Vinayaka Layout, 3rd
Cross, 1st Main, Hebbal Kempapura,
Bengaluru - 560 024.
(By Sri.A.K.S. - Advocate)
2
COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023
V/S
DEFENDANTS : 1 OVATION BADMINTON CENTRE
Sy.No.43/2, Dasarahalli, K.R.Puram
Hobli, Bhuvneshwari Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 024, Rep. its Partners.
2 SRI.M.SHIVAKUMAR
Managing Partner
No.C-1, Sri.Raghavendra Nilaya,
Talur Road, Srinagar, Bellary-583 102.
3 SRI.MUTHYAL PRASAD
Partner, Flat No.703, Aspen 'A',
(Tower2), Godrej Woodsman Estate,
Bellary Road, Hebbal, Bengaluru-560
024.
4 SRI.BASAVARAJ NADAGOUDA
Partner, Near Venkateshwar Temple,
Jawalgere, Raichur -564 143.
5 MAHESH S NIMBOOR
Partner, No.G04, Quartz 2, Kristal
Campus, Sarjapur Main Road, Yamare
Village, Bengaluru-562 125.
(Defendant No.1 to 3 & 5 - Exparte)
(Defendant No.4 by Sri.K.S. -
Advocate)
3
COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023
Date of Institution of the suit 21.03.2023
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for declaration & Ejectment, Arrears of Rent
Possession, Suit for injunction & Damages
etc.)
Date of commencement 09.11.2023
of recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 14.11.2025
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
02 07 24
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKHAR
CHANDRASHEKHAR DUNDAPPA
DUNDAPPA KAROSHI
KAROSHI
Date: 2025.11.15
17:44:55 -0500
(C.D.KAROSHI)
LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for ejectment of defendants from the schedule property and arrears of rent/damages along with interest and cost of the suit. 4
COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023
2. Brief facts are as under:-
That, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the land bearing Survey No. 43/2, totally measuring 3750 Sq.Ft (75x50), situated at Dasarahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bhuvneshwari Nagar, Bengaluru. The 1st Defendant is a Partnership Firm registered under the provisions of Partnership Act, 1932 and remaining defendants are the managing partner and partners of the 1st Defendant firm. The Defendants are in occupation of the Schedule Property as tenants under the Plaintiffs and are utilizing the same for their business. In that behalf, the 1st Defendant (represented by the 2nd Defendant) and the Plaintiffs had entered into a Registered lease agreement dated 30.05.2015. As per the lease agreement the Defendants had taken the schedule property on lease for the purpose of construction (Fabricated shed) of indoor Badminton Court and use the schedule premises for running of indoor Badminton centre and other indoor games under the name and style "OVATION 5 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 BADMINTON CENTRE". The period of lease was 5 years commencing from 01.06.2015 upto 01.06.2020. The monthly rent payable for the 1st year was Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Thousand Only). The monthly rent was to be enhanced by 10% every year.
3. Further it is averred that, plaintiffs had leased the Schedule Property to the Defendants on an initial monthly rent of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand only), which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.32,210/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred Ten Only) from the month of June, 2019. Though the defendants have paid monthly rent regularly upto 4th year of the lease period, but failed to pay enhanced rent from 5th year from June 2019 and were in arrears of rent to the tune of RS.1,28,840/-. Since, the Defendants failed to pay the rent despite several requests, the Plaintiffs terminated the lease agreement dated 30.05.2015 by issuing legal notice dated 19-10-2019 calling upon the Defendants to handover vacant possession of the schedule 6 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 property by removing all the fittings and structures stating that they are ready and willing to refund the deposit amount, after deducting the arrears of rent, upon the vacant possession of the schedule property handed over as per 'handing over the possession clause' in the lease agreement dated 30.05.2015. On the other hand The defendant No.2 had issued a reply contending that the schedule property was locked by the Plaintiffs and that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the schedule property thereby 2nd Defendant completely misrepresented facts in the reply notice by making false allegations. The 2nd Defendant has taken money and defrauded several people and closed the Badminton Centre fearing the people from whom he took money, but failed to handover the Schedule property. The 3rd Defendant orally informed the Plaintiffs that there is an internal dispute between the partners of the badminton centre and that if some time was granted, he would arrange for handing over of vacant possession of the Schedule property to the Plaintiffs 7 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 agreeing to deduct arrears of rent from the deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- paid by the Defendants at the time of leasing the Schedule property. Therefore, once again the Plaintiffs got issued legal notice dated 04.12.2021 to handover vacant possession of the Schedule property, the Defendant No.4 issued a reply on 22/01/2022, but failed to handover the vacant possession of the schedule property. Therefore, the Defendants are in illegal and un-authorised possession of the Schedule property and are liable to pay arrears of Rent of Rs.1,28,840/- with damages of Rs.15,36,379 to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have initiated the proceedings in accordance with section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act before the District Legal Services Authority Bengaluru Urban under PIM No. 2480/2022. The said proceedings were closed as matter not settled since the Defendants have failed to appear. The cause of action arose on 19-10-2019 being the date of notice of termination of tenancy under section 111 of Transfer of Property Act and all subsequent dates. Schedule property is 8 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 situated within the territorial and pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Court. On these grounds prayed for decreeing the suit.
4. Records reveal that despite service of suit summons defendant No.1 to 3 and 5 remained exparte. The defendant No.4 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement contending that at the time of execution of the Lease Deed, Defendant No. 1 paid a sum of Rs 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) by way of cheque bearing No. 000113, dated 30.05.2015, drawn on HDFC Bank, towards interest-free security deposit. As per the terms of the Lease Deed, the Plaintiffs were liable to refund the interest-free security deposit on the expiry of the lease term or earlier termination. The said registered Lease Deed also contemplated that the Defendant No. 1 Lessee, at the time of delivery of the vacant possession should dismantle the fabricated shed at the time of handing over vacant possession to the Plaintiffs. Further the defendant No. 1 regularly tendered rent without any default, up to July 2019. On 9 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 18.10.2019 the Plaintiffs visited the leased premises and without issuing any prior notice forcibly locked the said Badminton centre being run by the Defendant No. 1. Despite complaint filed by the Defendant No. 1, the Plaintiff refused to open the lock put to the Badminton centre, hence, Defendant No.1 was unable to utilize the said badminton Centre from 18.10.2019 in view of the illegal dispossession of the Defendant No. 1 from the leased premises. After taking over of possession of the Badminton centre, the Plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 19.10.2019, terminating the Lease Deed dated 30.05.2015, on the ground that the Defendants had failed and neglected to pay rent, and as on October 2019, the Defendant No.1 was in arrears of rent to a tune of Rs 1,28,840/-. The Plaintiffs also acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 6,00,000/- paid as security deposit. The original Lease Deed dated 30.05.2015 having a tenure of five years would expire on 01.06.2020, the Plaintiffs by virtue of the legal notice dated 19.10.2019, terminated the same as per the terms of the 10 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 Registered Lease Deed, and the Plaintiffs ought to have refunded the security deposit since the same was terminated on 19.10.2019, much prior to the expiry of the lease by efflux of time. Notwithstanding the same, this Defendant by way of a reply dated 22.01.2022, replied to the legal notice dated 04.12.2021 and requested the Plaintiffs to deduct the arrears of Rs.1,28,840/- as stated in the notice dated 19.10.2019 and refund the balance security deposit amount. The Defendant No. 4 had also sought permission of the Plaintiffs to dismantle the shed and restore the leased premises to the Plaintiffs.
5. Further contend that, although the Plaintiffs had agreed to deduct the arrears and intimate the date on which the structures could be removed, it was surprising that the Plaintiffs resorted to issuing a legal notice on 04.12.2021, demanding a sum of Rs. 3,67,588-. In the reply notice dated 22.01.2022, this Defendant clearly and emphatically stated that the Plaintiffs were already in possession of the schedule premises and question of paying damages does not arise at 11 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 all. Since, the Plaintiffs have not disputed the receipt of Rs. 6,00,000/-as refundable security deposit, the Plaintiffs are liable to refund the balance security deposit by appropriating a sum of Rs.1,28,840/, on receipt of the reply dated 21.01.2022. The Plaintiffs who have approached this court by suppressing various material facts. The Plaintiffs have failed to state the reasons as to why they did not refund the balance security deposit after deducting Rs. 1,28,840/-, and intimate to this Defendant the date on which the structure can be dismantled. The causes of action stated in Para 15 Illusory, since even before termination of the Lease Deed, the Plaintiffs have dispossessed the Defendants on 21.11.2019, which fact is not disputed by the Plaintiffs, since they failed to deny the same to the reply issued by the Defendant, accordingly the suit is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, at the best, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,28,840. As the Plaintiffs had already taken possession of the Schedule Premises, the question of the Defendants handing 12 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 over vacant possession does not arise. The Plaintiffs be put to strict proof of the same. On the other hand the defendant No.4 has set up counter-claim stating that Plaintiffs are liable to refund the sum of Rs.4,71,160/-after deducting the arrears of rent from the security deposit accordingly, Defendant is claiming a sum of Rs. 4,71,160/- by way of counter claim. Further in the additional written statement the defendant no.4 would contend that plaintiff, vide amendment has sought to insert Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act instead of Section 106 at para 15 of the Plaint. Without prejudice to the averments in the Written statement, it is submitted that the recovery of possession of an immovable property due to efflux of time under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act would not constitute a dispute capable of being adjudicated by a Commercial Court, as the same does not constitute a commercial dispute under the Commercial Court Act,2015. This court has no jurisdiction, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.
13
COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023
6. Per contra the plaintiffs have also filed rejoinder cum written statement to the counter-claim set up by the defendant No.4 by reiterating entire averments of the plaint contending that the defendant No.4 has raised a Counter claim against the Plaintiffs seeking refund of the sum of Rs.4,71,160/-, being the amount after having deducted the arrears of rent from the security deposit which is wholly misconceived, frivolous, not maintainable in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed in limine as barred by limitation and want of deficit court fee.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed the following:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants have continued with the tenancy under the plaintiff after 19.10.2019 ?14
COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, defendants are due of Rs.1,28,840/-
towards arrears of rent as of October 2019?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the defendants are liable to pay Rs.15,36,379/- towards damages along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of termination of notice for their illegal occupation in the suit schedule premises?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the termination of tenancy of the defendant is in accordance with law?
5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are entitled for ejectment and possession of the suit schedule premises from the defendants?
15
COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023
6. Whether the defendants prove that, they are entitled for Rs.4,71,160/- towards security deposit from the plaintiff as prayed in the counter claim?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
8. Whether the defendants are entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
9. What order or decree?
8. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28. On the other hand the defendant No.4 examined himself as DW.1 and no documents were being marked on behalf of the defendants.
9. Heard and perused the written arguments along with the material on record.
16
COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023
10. The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 has relied on the following decisions:-
1. Associated Journal Limited V/s ICRA Limited, 2012 SCC Online Del 1524.
2. A.C.Raman V/s Muthavally Seydali's Son Valiyakath Kaithakkal Kunhi Bara Haji, AIR 1953 MAD 996.
3. HS Bedi V/s NHAI, RFA 784/2010, CM Nos.19620/2012 & 1320/2013, 14.05.2015, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
11. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 : In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.2 : In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.4 : In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3 AND 5 : Does not survive for
consideration.
17
COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023
ISSUE NO.6 AND 7 : In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.6(a) : In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.8 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
12. ISSUE NOS.1, 2, 4 AND 6:- I take these issues
altogether for my discussion as the facts overlap for the sake of convenience.
13. It is worth to note that admittedly the plaintiffs being the absolute owners of the schedule property have filed the above numbered suit seeking eviction of the defendants from the schedule property along with arrears of rent with interest and damages towards illegal occupation of the schedule property. In this regard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs vehemently argued that though the defendant No.2 was taking care of defendant No.1 firm and also paying the rent regularly, but since 2019 the defendants failed to pay arrears of rent and continued to be in illegal occupation of the 18 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 schedule property even after termination of tenancy, therefore he prayed for decreeing the suit as sought for by dismissing the counter claim as barred by limitation.
14. Per contra, it is evident that despite service of summons defendant Nos.1 to 3 & 5 remained exparte. Defendant No.4 being the contesting party appeared and filed written statement by denying claim of the plaintiffs as false and set up counter-claim contending that the plaintiffs are liable to refund Rs.4,71,160/- after deducting arrears of rent of Rs.1,28,840/- from the security deposit amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as per lease deed dated 30.05.2015. In this connection the learned counsel for the defendant No.4 also strenuously argued that though the defendants do not dispute the fact that plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule property, but the plaintiffs themselves got terminated the lease by issuing notice and put a lock to the schedule centre, as such instead of refunding balance security deposit by deducting arrears of rent the plaintiffs have filed false the suit. Therefore 19 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 relying on decisions referred in para No.8 supra he prayed for dismissing the suit by allowing counter-claim.
15. In order to prove their case the plaintiff No.2 filed affidavit in lieu of oral evidence by reiterating entire averments of the plaint, examined himself as PW.1, therefore I find that it is not necessary to reproduce the same. In order to support his oral testimony PW.1 got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 28 and subjected to cross examination.
16. In order to substantiate their case the defendant No.4 filed affidavit in lieu of oral evidence by reproducing contents of written statement and counter-claim, examined himself as DW.1, therefore it is not necessary to reproduce the same. In order to support their contention no documents were being marked and cross examined by the plaintiff's counsel.
17. On careful perusal of entire material on record like oral and documentary evidence, we can find that so far as in respect of relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants 20 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 as Landlords and tenants is concerned there is no dispute. It is also not in dispute that as per Ex.P1 Copy of Lease Deed dated 30.05.2015 the plaintiffs have inducted the defendant Nos.2 to 5 partners of defendant No.1 Firm for the purpose of construction of Indoor Badminton Court in to the schedule property on monthly rent of Rs.22,000/- with enhanced rent for a period of 5 years by receiving security deposit of Rs.6,00,000/-. As urged by the learned counsel for the parties in their written arguments, the defendants have also paid agreed rent to the plaintiffs till the month of May or July 2019.
18. It is to be noticed that, in this regard it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that when the defendants failed to pay monthly rent the plaintiffs got issued termination notice twice as per Ex.P.4 dated 19.10.2019 and Ex.P.15 dated 04.12.2021 calling upon the defendants to quit & handover vacant possession of the schedule property along with arrears of rent of Rs.1,28,840/-by removing the fabrications and to pay damages of Rs.3,67,588/- towards illegal possession of 21 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 the schedule property even after termination of tenancy, therefore the Defendants liable to pay arrears of Rent of Rs.1,28,840/- with damages of Rs.15,36,379 to the Plaintiffs. On the contrary, during the course of cross examination dated 13.02.2025 PW.1 states that there was an out standing rent of Rs.1,28,000/- as on 19.10.2019 and it is the defendant No. 2 only liable to pay the claim amount and not the defendant No.4, which demolishes the claim of the plaintiffs regarding arrears of rent and damages as against remaining defendants in the legal notices and plaint.
19. It may be noted that, even other wise claim of the plaintiffs also has been seriously disputed by the defendants contending that the Plaintiffs had already taken possession of the Schedule Premises as such question of handing over vacant possession with damages does not arise. This apart, the defendant No.4 has set up counter-claim stating that Plaintiffs are liable to refund a sum of Rs.4,71,160/-after deducting the arrears of rent from the security deposit. But, 22 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 in the cross examination of DW.1 dated 01.07.2025 admits that, they being partners of defendant No.1 Firm have not paid monthly rent of Rs.32,210/- from July 2019 to October 2019 and has to be deducted in security deposit. So now it is clear that the plaintiffs are entitled for arrears of monthly rent of Rs.32,310/-X 4 = 1,28.840/- from July 2019 to October 2019 subject to law of limitation.
20. It is relevant to point out that, according to section 101 of Evidence Act- burden lies on the plaintiff to prove their case on basis of material available, as such they cannot rely on weakness or absence of defense of defendant to discharge the onus. In the case on hand though the defendant Nos.1 to 3 & 5 remained exparte, but in Ex.P.2 and 3 reply notices they would specifically contend that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property from the date of termination and plaintiffs did not permit them for removing the structures, which suggests determination of lease by implied surrender as required under section 111(f) of the T P 23 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 Act. Further absolutely there is no iota of evidence to show that even after termination of lease the defendants willfully and negligently remained in the occupation of the schedule property, on the other hand they would contend that it is the plaintiffs who are in the possession of the schedule property from the date of termination, as such question of payment of damages does not arise. It has also come in the evidence of DW.1 as well. As against this, there is no rejoinder or rebuttal evidence given by the plaintiffs, as such on this aspect an adverse inference can validly be drawn against the plaintiffs.
21. Furthermore, admittedly as per terms of Lease agreement the period was 5 years commencing from 1 st June 2015 has expired on 1st June 2020. Though the defendants would contend that plaintiffs have got issued notice to quit before expiry of the said duration, but there is another clause in the agreement to the effect that lessee shall deliver the possession back upon expiry of the term or on earlier termination if any. Accordingly when the defendants became 24 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 defaulters to pay arrears of rent in the month of October 2019 the plaintiffs got terminated the tenancy in accordance with law, which is not in dispute. The provisions of section 108(h) of T P Act provides that even after termination of the lease lessee has to remove the fixtures put on the schedule property, but defendants have also not complied. So in these circumstances, as observed in the decisions referred by the defence counsel in the written arguments it can be said that, when the registered lease being for a definite term which has already been expired as on 1 st June 2020 by efflux of time by reason of section 111(a) of the Act, then even otherwise no notice under section 106 of TP Act is necessary for termination of the lease.
22. It is pertinent to note here that, in view of my discussion made supra though the suit of the plaintiffs for eviction and vacant possession of the schedule property is in time, but as observed supra possession of the suit property has already been implieldly surrendered by the defendants 25 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 and the defendants have admitted handing over of vacant possession of the schedule property through out the proceedings since from the stage of reply to legal notice, as such no relief for vacant possession of the schedule premises can be granted. Similarly, another question that arises at this juncture is whether the relief of arrears of rent for a sum of Rs. 1,28,840/- along with damages of Rs.15,36,379/- with interest claimed by the plaintiffs from the date of termination of lease and the counter claim set up by the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,71,160/- as balance amount of security deposit are within the period of limitation as required under Article 52 of the Limitation Act or not is to be looked into.
23. In so far as the plea of recovery of arrears of rent is concerned, it is the case of the plaintiffs as stated in para 7 and 15 of the plaint that, the defendants were in arrears of rent and became defaulters in the month of October 2019, cause of action to file the suit also arose on 19.10.2019. So Plaintiffs ought to have approached the DLSA and file the suit 26 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 on or before 19.10.2022, but Ex.P26 reveals that plaintiffs approached the DLSA for pre-mediation institution in the month of December 2022. The suit was filed on 21.03.2023.
24. It may be noted that though no such issue on the point of limitation has been framed by this court, but Sec.3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 mandates that whether the suit or counter- claim are filed within the period of limitation i.e., subject to the provisions contained in Sec.4 to 24 of the Act has to be looked into. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in suo- motu writ petition (c) No.3/2020 dated 10.01.2022 again observed that in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period dated 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, not withstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. So now it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said petition cognizance for extension of limitation during the covid-19 pandemic extended the period of limitation for all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. 27
COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023
25. So as observed supra plaintiffs ought to have approached the DLSA and file the suit on or before 19.10.2022, but Ex.P26 reveals that plaintiffs approached the DLSA for pre-mediation institution in the month of December 2022 after lapse of 3 years. In view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Suo-Motu congnizance for extension of limitation during the Covid-19 pandemic as referred supra, even otherwise if while computing the period of limitation we exclude period of 90 days with effect from 01.03.2022 then also approach of the plaintiffs for pre- institution mediation proceedings as per Ex.P.26 dated 16.12.2022 as well as filing of the suit on 21.03.2023 for recovery of outstanding arrears of rent of Rs.1,28,140/- for the period 01.07.2019 to 01.10.2019 along with damages are hopelessly barred by limitation. In these circumstances question of granting the decree for rent of Rs.1,28,140/- and awarding damages of Rs.15,36,379/- along with interest does not arise.
28
COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023
26. Similarly, it is the specific contention of the defendants that as per the case of the plaintiffs they got terminated the lease agreement dated 30.05.2015 by issuing Ex.P.4 legal notice dated 19.10.2019. In para 17 of written statement the defendant No.4 would contend that the plaintiffs have already taken possession of the schedule premises on 18.10.2019. So as per Ex.P.2 and 3 the defendants have also not replied to the notice of termination at the earlier stage, but they replied in the month of February 2020 and Jan 2022. As per clause in Ex.P.1 lease agreement dated 30.01.2015 the security deposit amount of Rs.6 lakhs shall have to be repaid free of interest to the defendant at the end of the period of rent agreement or any extension thereof or earlier termination.
27. The defendants have filed written statement in the month of July 2023 and also set up counter claim seeking direction to the plaintiffs to pay balance amount of Rs.4,71,160/- after deducting arrears of rent of Rs.1,28,140/ in security deposit amount-. So in view of my discussion 29 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 made supra while dealing with claim of the plaintiffs for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.1,28,140/-, even otherwise if we go through the defence set up by the defendants through out the proceedings we can find that before filing the written statement with counter claim the defendants have neither complied the provisions of Sec.12A of Commercial Courts Act nor set up the counter-claim for return of balance security deposit amount of Rs.4,71,160/- within 3 years from the date of cause of action i.e., handing over vacant possession of the schedule premises on 18.10.2019 as contended in para 17 of the written statement or the defendant No.4 has verified the contents of Written statement / counter-claim as required under order VI Rule 15 R/w order VIII Rule 6(B) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, for these reasons an adverse inference can also have to be drawn against Defendants.
28. That apart, with regard to compliance of Sec.12A of Commercial Courts Act no bit of document is forthcoming 30 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 before this court for having appeared or complied the provisions of Sec.12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 by appearing before the DLSA as Ex.P.26 during PIM 2480/2022 prior to setting up counter claim in the written statement.
29. In this regard it has been held by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Adity A Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd V/s Saroj Thandon (DD 02.09.2024) that process of Pre-Institution Mediation is mandatory for every suit involving a commercial suit and no distinction can be drawn when it comes to a counter claim involving a commercial dispute and not contemplating any urgent relief, as such as per the mandate of Patil Automation Pvt Ltd case, any such suit, which has been filed without taking recourse of Sec.12A of Commercial Courts Act needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Further as against the said judgment, the SLP No.25893/2024 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also came to be 31 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 dismissed on 11.11.2024 as no case to interfere with the orders dated 02.09.2024.
30. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Dhanbad Fuels Pvt Ltd V/s Union of India and others (2025 INSC 696) observed that if the suit is instituted on or after the date of decision in Patil automation, i.e., 20.08.2022 without complying with Sec.12A of the 2015 Act, then it must meet with rejection under Order VII Rule 11, either on an application by the defendant or suo-motu by the court. So in the light of the observation made in the case of Adity A Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd no distinction can be drawn when it comes to a counter claim involving a commercial dispute as well.
31. As against the above said judgments no order or judgment on this point forthcoming before this court. Therefore any amount of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants do not have weight and cannot be accepted for want of limitation. Consequently, 32 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. Similarly, the counter claim set up by the defendants is liable to be dismissed as required under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC. Hence, I answer the issue No.2 & 4 in the Affirmative, issues No.1 and 6 are in the Negative.
32. ISSUE NOS.3, 5, 6(a) AND 7:- In view of my discussion made supra while dealing with issue Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6, I come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed without costs and counter-claim set up by the defendants is liable to be rejected without costs, hence I answer issue Nos.3 & 5 as does not survive for consideration and issue No.6(a) and 7 are in the Negative.
33. ISSUE NO.8:- For the forgoing reasons I proceed to pass the following:-
33
COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 :ORDER:
The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
The counter-claim set up by the defendant No.4 stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and signed by me then pronounced in the open court on 14th day of November 2025) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKHAR CHANDRASHEKHAR DUNDAPPA DUNDAPPA KAROSHI KAROSHI Date: 2025.11.15 17:45:12 -0500 (C.D.KAROSHI) LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, EXCLUSIVELY DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:-
PW-1 Sri.Venkategowda LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P.1 Copy of the lease deed dated 30.05.2015 Ex.P.2 Copy of reply notice dated 24.02.2020 34 COMM.O.S.NO.382/2023 Ex.P.3 Copy of the reply notice dated 22.01.2022 Ex.P.4 Office copy of the legal notice dated 19.10.2019 Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.9 Postal receipts Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.13 Postal acknowledgments Ex.P.14 & Ex.P.14(a) Unserved RPAD cover & notice under RPAD cover Ex.P.15 Office copy of the legal notice dated 04.12.2021 Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.20 Postal receipts Ex.P.21 Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.25 Unserved RPAD cover & notice under RPAD & Ex.P.22(a) to cover Ex.P.25(a) Ex.P.26 PIM report Ex.P.27 4 photos with subject to production of 65B certificate Ex.P.28 CD with subject to display LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:-
DW.1 Basavaraj Nadaouda LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:- NIL.Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKHAR CHANDRASHEKHAR DUNDAPPA KAROSHI DUNDAPPA KAROSHI Date: 2025.11.15 17:45:19 -0500 (C.D.KAROSHI) LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, EXCLUSIVELY DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU.