ORAL ORDER

The defendants in Com.O.S.No.1090/2023 pending trial before the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'commercial Court') have filed this petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 15.02.2024 by which, they were directed to handover the keys of the schedule 'A' property to the plaintiff.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the commercial Court. The petitioners herein were the defendants, while the respondent was the plaintiff before the commercial Court.

3. The suit in Com.O.S.No.1090/2023 was filed for ejectment of the defendants from the suit schedule 'A' property and for recovery of arrears of rent and for compensation towards depreciation of machineries and tools handed over to the defendants at the time of entering into a lease agreement. The plaintiff claimed that he was the owner of the suit schedule 'A' property and had leased it out to the defendants for commercial purposes. He claimed that he issued a notice dated 10.03.2023 terminating the tenancy and called upon the defendants to handover the possession of the suit schedule 'A' property. Since the defendants failed to comply with the demand made in the notice, the instant suit was filed for ejectment and for other reliefs.

4. (i) The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein they contended inter alia as follows:

"As of now the defendants are not in possession of any portion of the property either A or B and both the properties are in possession of the plaintiff. The letter and email correspondences prove that the defendants are not in possession of any of the properties either schedule A or B."

(ii) They further contended that, "In reality when the defendants handed over the possession of the premises in question as per the inventory, the fixtures and other things are handed over to the plaintiff very long back at the time of handing over the possession and since all the fixtures and other parts are in the custody of the plaintiff, he cannot claim recovery of money on the ground that the same is in possession of the defendants."

(iii) It was further contended that, "These defendants submit that as on the date of vacating the premises the defendants have cleared the dues with the BWSSB and BESCOM and further more since the plaintiff is doing the business in the very same schedule A and B properties, the amount i.e., the bill amounts are escalated that cannot be a ground to recovery of money from the defendants."

(iv) The defendants have copiously quoted the above statements in their written statement and they claimed that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties.

5. After draft issues were framed, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for a direction to the defendants to handover the keys of the suit schedule 'A' property to the plaintiff.

6. (i) This application was contested by the defendants who claimed that, "In fact, the keys and the schedule 'A'

property was handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff very long back as stated in the written statement and now only to get wrongful gain the plaintiff has presented this application."

(ii) They further contended that they vacated the premises very long back and they are not in possession of the property anymore. Hence, the question of handing over the keys of the schedule 'A' property does not arise at all.

7. The commercial Court after considering the aforesaid contentions, held that the defendants would not be prejudiced if the application filed by the plaintiff is allowed and consequently, allowed the application directing the defendants to handover the keys of the suit schedule 'A' property.

8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants are before this Court in this writ petition.

9. The learned counsel for the defendants reiterated the above contentions and claimed that the defendants have handed over the k