The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Court), vide an Order dated 8 July 2025 (Order) in Venugopal Krishnamurthy & Anr. Versus M Tejaswini, has quashed an order of the subordinate court, and allowed the petitioners' application to strike off the respondent's defense in the original eviction suit due to persistent non-compliance with the subordinate court's orders mandating the deposit of rental arrears.
Brief Background and Facts
The Petitioners, Mr. Venugopal Krishnamurthy and Mrs. Poorna Venugopal, are the owners of a property leased to the Respondent, Smt. M. Tejaswini, for operating a pre-school. The Petitioners had thereafter instituted an eviction suit on 30 August 2022, following the respondent's default in rental payments. The petitioners also filed certain applications seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from continuing possession and directions for the deposit of rental arrears from March 1, 2020, to August 30, 2022, at Rs 82,431 per month.
On 15 July 2023, the trial court partly allowed the application, directing the respondent to deposit the arrears within two months. The respondent challenged this order, which was dismissed by the Court on 9 February 2024, noting the respondent's continued failure to deposit any rent since 2020. Despite these orders, the respondent failed to comply, prompting the petitioners to file an application under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to strike off the respondent's defense. The trial court rejected this application on July 5, 2024, leading to the present writ petition before the Court.
Contentions of the Parties
The petitioners contended that the respondent had defaulted on rent payments for five years, accumulating arrears of approximately Rs 50 lakhs, and failed to comply with court orders dated 15 July 2023, and 9 February 2024, mandating the deposit of rental arrears. They further contended that this wilful non-compliance justified striking off the respondent's defense under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. Conversely, the respondent claimed a rent waiver for 2020–2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, asserting that her preschool was non-operational during this period. She further requested two years to clear the arrears, contingent on continued possession, and proposed vacating the premises by 30 April 2025, provided the petitioners waived the arrears. However, the petitioners provided evidence, obtained through a Right to Information (RTI) application, that the school's license was canceled on 2 March 2023, and no educational activities were being conducted.
Court's Findings
The Court, after reviewing the submissions and material on record, made the following key observations:
- Non-Compliance with Court Orders: The Court observed that the respondent had not paid any rent for five years, accumulating arrears of approximately Rs 50 lakhs. Despite explicit orders from the trial court and the High Court to deposit the arrears, the respondent's failure to comply was deemed a willful and contumacious defiance of judicial directives.
- Application of Order VI Rule 16 CPC: The Court held that Order VI Rule 16 CPC empowers courts to strike off pleadings that are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the judicial process. The respondent's persistent non-compliance was found to fall within these categories, justifying the striking off of her defense.
- Rejection of Respondent's Plea: The respondent's claim for a rent waiver due to the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022) was dismissed, as the pre-school's license had been canceled in 2023, and no evidence supported continued operations. The respondent's proposal to vacate the premises by 30 April 2025, contingent on waiving the arrears, was deemed audacious and lacking remorse. Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC, read with Section 151, empowers the court to strike off pleadings that are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, particularly when interim orders are defied.
MHCO Comment
This ruling emphasizes the Court's firm stance against tenants who willfully defy court orders, particularly in cases of non-payment of rent. By relying on established precedents, the Court has reinforced the principle that contumacious conduct, such as non-compliance with interim orders, disentitles a party from being heard on the merits.
This judgment serves as a strong deterrent to those who attempt to prolong litigation while flouting court directives. It also highlights the importance of timely compliance with judicial orders to maintain the integrity of legal proceedings and protect the rights of property owners. The ruling is likely to bolster landlord confidence in seeking judicial remedies and may prompt stricter enforcement of tenancy agreements.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
