Introduction:
In the case titled Suresh Babu C v. V. Varadarajan & Anr., the Karnataka High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 1340 of 2025, presided over by Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, decisively held that once a landlord issues a valid statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and files a counter-claim for ejectment, the foundation of a tenant’s suit for injunction collapses. The appeal arose from a trial court decision that dismissed the tenant’s suit for permanent injunction and upheld the landlord’s counter-claim for possession. The High Court not only affirmed the legality of counter-claims under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC but also stressed that such a claim is valid even in a bare injunction suit filed by a tenant. The appellant-tenant, Suresh Babu C, had sought protection against eviction citing personal hardship, while the respondents-landlords, led by V. Varadarajan, had previously issued a statutory notice terminating the lease and sought recovery of possession. The Court, finding no procedural infirmity and emphasizing the binding nature of admitted facts, dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree for ejectment.
Arguments of the Appellant-Tenant:
The appellant, Suresh Babu C, who was the tenant in the disputed premises, approached the trial court seeking a permanent injunction against the landlords from evicting him. He claimed that the landlords were acting high-handedly and pressuring him to vacate the premises on or before September 30, 2024. The tenant cited the educational needs of his son, who was studying in the 9th standard, as a pressing reason to stay in the property. He alleged that the landlords were attempting unlawful dispossession without following due process and thus sought the court’s protection.
The appellant argued that he was not given an adequate opportunity to lead evidence in the trial court. He contended that the matter required fuller adjudication rather than a summary decision based on admissions alone. Additionally, he prayed for an equitable relief from the High Court, seeking at least a year’s time to vacate the premises considering the personal hardship involved.
Arguments of the Respondents-Landlords:
The respondents, V. Varadarajan and another, contested the injunction suit by filing a counter-claim for ejectment. They submitted that a valid quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been served upon the tenant, effectively terminating the tenancy. They emphasized that the lease had expired on February 28, 2014, and that the tenant had unequivocally admitted to both the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and the receipt of the termination notice. Therefore, they argued, the tenant had no enforceable legal right to continue in possession of the premises.
Senior Advocate G. Krishna Murthy, appearing for the landlords, contended that the tenant’s failure to contest the termination of tenancy or assert any existing right to occupy the premises made the suit for injunction untenable. The respondents maintained that once the counter-claim for possession was filed, the issue of the tenant’s possession had to be adjudicated in full, and it would be illogical to require landlords to initiate a separate eviction suit when the tenant had himself initiated proceedings concerning the tenancy.
They also argued that the counter-claim was legally maintainable under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC and that the procedural rights of the tenant were not violated in any manner. The respondents explicitly refused to grant any concession or extension to vacate, asserting that the tenant had continued to occupy the premises illegally despite clear legal termination.
Court’s Judgment:
The Karnataka High Court, after meticulously reviewing the trial court record and submissions of both parties, dismissed the tenant’s appeal and upheld the decree of ejectment granted on the landlord’s counter-claim. The Court noted that the appellant had made categorical admissions regarding (i) the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, (ii) the expiry of the lease on 28.02.2014, and (iii) receipt of the quit notice served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. These admissions, according to the Court, left no room for dispute on the legal termination of tenancy.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum emphasized that once a counter-claim is filed seeking possession after the issuance of a valid notice, the entire premise of a tenant’s suit for mere injunction alleging unlawful dispossession becomes unsustainable. The High Court found that the trial court had rightly concluded that no further evidence was required in view of the admitted facts. The grievance that the tenant was denied an opportunity to lead evidence was held meritless given the legal effect of the admissions.
The Court categorically held that the tenant, having admitted the termination of tenancy, had no enforceable right to remain in possession. Therefore, the equitable remedy of injunction could not be granted. It reaffirmed that a landlord is entitled to maintain a counter-claim for ejectment under Order VIII Rule 6A, CPC, even when such relief is not connected to the cause of action in the original suit.
Further, the Court observed that requiring landlords to file a separate eviction suit when the tenant had already instituted proceedings about possession would be illogical and legally unwarranted. It noted that the lis was no longer confined to a prohibitory injunction but included the adjudication of the right to possession under the counter-claim. Consequently, the trial court’s approach in disposing of the suit based on admitted facts and granting the decree in the counter-claim was held to be correct and free from any procedural illegality.
On the issue of equitable relief, the High Court rejected the tenant’s plea for one year’s time to vacate, especially considering that the landlords, one of whom is a 94-year-old cancer patient, had explicitly denied any concession. The Court held that once a lawful termination and decree for possession is granted, it cannot issue discretionary orders extending possession in the absence of consent from the successful party.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court’s ruling is a reaffirmation of the statutory and procedural rights of landlords to seek possession through counter-claims in suits for injunction. It reiterates that tenants cannot prolong possession on the basis of expired leases and that equitable relief will not be extended in the face of clear legal termination and judicial admissions.