IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20676 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. MR. AYUB-UR-REHMAN S/O MUMTAZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. MRS. SYEDA REHIMA SHIFAA.

W/O. AYUB-UR-REHMAN. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH PETITIONERS 1 & 2 R/A. CASA ANDREE II, FLAT NO B-1, 1ST FLOOR, NO. 18/3, BHEEMANNA GARDEN, Digitally AKKITHIMMANAHALLI, signed by BANGALORE -560 027.

RUPA V Location: …PETITIONERS High Court Of (BY SMT. SYEDA SHEHNAZ, ADVOCATE FOR Karnataka SRI. BALAKRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MRS. KAVERI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS D/O. LATE CHANDRAPPA.

R/A.NO.38, 4TH CROSS, NEW BEL ROAD, ITI LAYOUT, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560 054.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NATARAJA H C., ADVOCATE)

- - -

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.3392/2022 PENDING IN THE FILE OF HON'BLE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-

44) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated

11.06.2025 passed in O.S.No.3392/2022 by the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.44), Bangalore.

2. Smt.Syeda Shehnaz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent has filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioners and in the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to implead Smt.Himanshi V Vachani and Smt.Poonam A.K.Vachani as parties to the suit on the ground that the plaintiff, during the cross-examination on 16.12.2024 has clearly admitted that Smt.Himanshi V Vachani and Smt.Poonam A.K.Vachani are the landlords. It is submitted that the proposed defendants are the owners of the property in question and they have inducted the petitioners into the premises. The original owners intend to sell the property in favour of the petitioners and there were discussions with regard to the purchase of the property. Pursuant to the said discussions, the petitioners have transferred Rs.26,50,000/- to the proposed defendants as a part sale consideration. It is further submitted that Smt.Himanshi V Vachani executed a tenancy agreement on 01.05.2012. After completion of the term of the agreement, it was terminated and thereafter, Smt.Poonam A.K.Vachani executed a fresh tenancy agreement on 01.04.2014. By virtue of the said agreement, the petitioners are in possession of the premises. Unless the proposed defendants are arrayed as parties to the proceedings, it would be difficult to adjudicate the pending suit. It is also submitted that a substantial amount of Rs.26,50,000/- is paid to the proposed defendants as the sale consideration and they being the owners of the premises, the suit cannot be proceeded without impleading them. Hence, the proposed defendants are the necessary and proper parties. Therefore, she seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order of the Trial Court and to implead the proposed defendants Smt.Himanshi V Vachani and Smt.Poonam A.K.Vachani as the defendants in the suit.

3. Per contra, Sri.Nataraja H.C., learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the proposed defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties to decide the suit filed by the respondent for ejectment. The respondent purchased the property in question in the year 1995 and thereafter, entered into a tenancy agreement with the petitioners on 01.05.2012 and from the said date, the petitioners have paid the rents every month to the respondent-plaintiff which is evident from the bank's statement. It is further submitted that the suit is being one for eject