Karnataka High Court
Sri. Kamlesh Kumar. M Sanghvi vs Sri. K. N. Vasanthakumar on 5 December, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52055
CRP No. 353 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 353 OF 2023 (SC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KAMLESH KUMAR M. SANGHVI
S/O SANGHVI D. MOOLACHAND,
PROP M/S J.K. SACK AND PACKAGING
WRONGLY SHOWN AS PROP: M/S JAY K. SANGVI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO.59, GROUND FLOOR,
KABADI BUILDING,
CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE STREET,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. K. N. VASANTHAKUMAR
Digitally signed
S/O LATE K NARAYAN SA,
by AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
SHARADAVANI
B R/AT NO.10, DARJIPET,
Location: High T.T.STREET CROSS,
Court of BENGALURU - 560 053.
Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREED DATED 20.04.2023 PASSED IN
SC.NO.2073/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52055
CRP No. 353 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Rameshchandra, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Anil Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Tenant/revision petitioner is challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed in S.C.2073/2016 dated 20.04.2023 on the file of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-4).
3. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:
3.1. Respondent/landlord filed a suit for ejectment against the tenant/revision petitioner in S.C.No.2073/2016 which on contest came to be decreed by order dated 20.04.2023.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:52055 CRP No. 353 of 2023 HC-KAR
4. In the said proceedings, there was an issue with regard to the payment of security deposit. While the tenant contended that sum of Rs.10,00,000/- is the security deposit, landlord maintained that his father had received only Rs.1,00,000/- as the security deposit.
5. Be it what it may, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the tenant had paid security deposit only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and not Rs.10,00,000/- as is contented by the tenant.
6. On that score, the tenant is hanging on to the petition premises stating that unless the security deposit is returned, he would not vacate the premises.
7. This Court having heard the arguments of both sides, has noted that the tenant has got the right to recover the security deposit in accordance with law in a separate proceedings and that shall not come in the way of tenant vacating the premises.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:52055 CRP No. 353 of 2023 HC-KAR
8. When this aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for revision petitioner, Sri.Rameshchandra, learned counsel would submit that the tenant would require a reasonable time to vacate and handover the premises with liberty to recover the security deposit in a separately constituted suit in accordance with law.
9. Sri.Anil Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that it is almost 10 years that the ejectment suit is filed and therefore, time of 15 days may be granted to the tenant to vacate the premises.
10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that at least, time shall be granted up to 31.03.2026 for vacating the premises. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:52055 CRP No. 353 of 2023 HC-KAR
11. Accordingly, following:
ORDER i. Revision petition stands dismissed. ii. However, time is granted to vacate and handover the premises till 31st of March, 2026 subject to payment of rent including the arrears and to file an undertaking that the tenant would voluntarily vacate the premises without driving the landlord to file execution proceedings.
iii. It is made clear that this Court has while dismissing this revision petition has not recorded any finding with regard to the security deposit and tenant/revision petitioner is at liberty to file separate suit for recovery of the security deposit. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:52055 CRP No. 353 of 2023 HC-KAR iv. If any such suit is filed by the tenant/revision petitioner, respondent/landlord is at liberty to oppose the said suit with all available defences in accordance with law. v. Observations made in the impugned order with regard to security deposit shall not affect the rights of the parties. vi. Affidavit of undertaking shall be filed within four weeks from today.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK