ORDER

1. This petition by the defendant in Commercial O.S. No. 1110/2022 passed by the Commercial Court whereby the application, I.A. No. 4 filed by the petitioner – defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was rejected by the trial Court.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents – landlords instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner – defendant for ejectment, arrears of rent and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. Said suit is being contested by the petitioner – defendant. In addition thereto, petitioner – defendant filed instant application, I.A. No. 4 seeking rejection of the pliant inter alia contending that the respondents – plaintiffs had availed loan from Sir M. Vishveshwaraiah Co-operative Bank and since the respondents were defaulters, said Bank had initiated proceedings for recovery including proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against the respondents. It is therefore contended that the respondents did not have locus standi to institute suit against the petitioner – defendant and it is only the Bank which had stepped into the shoes of the respondents – plaintiffs that was entitled to file and prosecute the said suit against the petitioner – defendant and consequently, the plaint was liable to be rejected. 3. The respondents – plaintiffs opposed the said application inter alia contending that for the purpose of rejection of plaint, it is only plaint averment and documents produced along with the plaint that are germane and material for consideration. It was contended that the present suit is a simple suit for ejectment and arrears of rent by respondents – land lords against the petitioner – tenant was maintainable and plaint was not liable to be rejected as sought for by the petitioner – defendant. After hearing the parties, the commercial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting I.A. No.

IV by holding as under: ORDER ON I.A. No.IV This application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is filed by the defendant praying to reject the plaint.

2.

In the affidavit in support of application, defendant has stated that the plaintiff had obtained loan from Sri.M.Visveswaraiah Co-operative Bank Limited and had defaulted in servicing the loan account which has resulted in account being classified as Non Performing Assets and the bank has invoked SARFAESI proceedings by issuing statutory notices i.e. Demand Notice, Possession Notice and taken steps to take physical possession under Section 14. It is stated that the BBMP has also issued notice for recovering arrears of property tax and also informed that they will seize the entire schedule property and hence lessor claiming rent as arrears of rent do not arise. It is also stated that original owner of the property has mortgaged not only lease hold rights but also offered personal guarantee and the mortgagee is having right to recover the rents directly from the occupants/lessee among whom the defendant is also one of the tenant. It is stated that SARFAESI Act mandates the secured creditor to recover the rents from the occupants and tenants. It is stated that the plaintiff has suppressed these facts and question of law in the present suit and has not appeared through authorized representatives in OS No.26477/2021 and OS No.26273/2022. It is stated that the plaintiff has also not invoked and complied the provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act by initiating PIM. It is also stated that the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 though signed vakalathnama no authorization letter is filed for filing statement of admission and denial of documents. It is stated that for all these reasons, plaint is liable to be rejected.

3.

Objection is filed by the plaintiff stating that the application is not maintainable in law or on facts. It is stated that under Order VII rule 11 of CPC plaint can be rejected as provided in Rule 11(a) to 11(f) and defendant has not stated as to under which sub rule the p