Bangalore District Court
In : R.K.Balu vs In All The Cases on 15 February, 2016
Form No.9
(Civil) Title
Sheet for
Judgment
in Suits
R.P. 91
PRESENT: SRI S.H.HOSAGOUDAR,
B.Sc.,LL.B.,[Spl]
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 15th day of February 2016
ORIGINAL SUIT NOS. 2406/2010; 2407/2010;
2408/2010; 2409/2010; 2802/2010; 2803/2010;
2969/2010; 3399/2010; 3400/2010; 3530/2010;
3531.2010; 3532/2010; 3533/2010; 3631/2010;
3632/2010; 3633/2010; 3634/2010; 3635/2010;
3636/2010; 3637/2010; 3638/2010; 3639/2010;
3640/2010; 3641/2010; 3729/2010; 3730/2010;
3731/2010; 3732/2010; 3733/2010; 3734/2010;
3735/2010; 3736/2010; 3737/2010; 3738/2010;
3831/2010; 3832/2010; 3833/2010; 3847/2010;
3848/2010; 3849/2010; 3863/2010
PLAINTIFF IN : R.K.Balu,
O.S.2406/2010 Aged about 66 years,
S/o Rengasami,
Shop premises No.76,
BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex, Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : B.R. Harish,
O.S.2407/2010 Aged about 54 years,
S/o B.A.Ramappa Gowda,
M/s Spectra Foods,
Shop No.27 and 28,
2 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex, Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Pushpa Raj,
O.S.2408/2010 Aged about years,
W/o Ramesh Rai,
Shop Premises No.37,
BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex,
Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Ramesh Raj,
O.S.2409/2010 Aged about 62 years,
S/o Vishwanatha,
Shop premises No.22,
BDA Indiranagar
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Gowru Bai,
O.S.2802/2010 Aged about 51 years,
W/o G.Suresh,
Shop premises No.01,
BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex, Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
3 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
PLAINTIFF IN : S.Venkatesh,
O.S.2803/2010 Aged about 47 years,
S/o Sundara Raj,
Shop premises No.42,
BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex, Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : G.R. Hanumantha Rao,
O.S.2969/2010 Aged about 59 years,
S/o Late Ramachandra Rao,
Shop premises No.02,
BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex, Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Chiu Yung Chen,
O.S.3399/2010 Aged about 60 years,
D/o Late Chiu Ti Sing,
Shop Premises No.56,
BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex,
Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : M.Shaffiulla,
O.S.3400/2010 Aged about 79 years,
S/o Late B.M.Abdulla Rahim,
Shop premises No.55,
BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex, Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
4 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
PLAINTIFF IN : Sri Li Ching Lin,
O.S.3530/2010 Aged about 55 years,
S/o Late Li Yung Chung,
Shop Premises No.07,
Austin town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Sri Padmanabha Rao
O.S.3531/2010 Aged about 51 years,
S/o Nagoji Rao,
Shop premises No. 63,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Leelavathi R W/o
O.S.3532/2010 Late E.Ramakrishna Rao,
Aged about 52 years,
Shop premises No.72,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Sri B.M.Rajanna,
O.S.3533/2010 Aged about 55 years,
S/o Munishamappa,
Shop premises No.54,
Austin Town BDA
5 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Sri D.G.Prabhakar
O.S.3631/2010 S/o Late D.G.Hemavathi,
Aged about 32 years,
Shop premises No.06,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Sri K.Kannan,
O.S.3632/2010 Aged about 57 years,
S/o K.Koran,
Shop premises No.57,
Austin Town BDA Shopping
Complex, Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Inayath Ulla Khan,
O.S.3633/2010 Aged about 45 years,
S/o Ibrahim Khan,
Proprietor Goden Corn
Machinery Co.,
Shop Premises No.44,
BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex, Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
6 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
PLAINTIFF IN : Smt. Lakshmi,
O.S.3634/2010 Aged about 60 years,
W/o Dhana Singh,
Shop premises No. 69,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Munaver Shariff,
O.S.3635/2010 Aged about 55 years,
S/o Late Mohammed Ghouse,
Shop premises No.74,
Austin Town BDA,
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Smt. N.Vijaya,
O.S.3636/2010 Aged about 50 years,
W/o Sri Kumar,
Shop premises No.02,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : R.Paramesh,
O.S.3637/2010 Aged about 55 years,
S/o Raju,
Shop premises No.78,
Austin Town BDA
7 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Vaseem Ahmed,
O.S.3638/2010 Aged about 48 years,
S/o Enayathulla Naseem,
Shop premises No.64,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Karnataka Fisheries Development
O.S.3639/2010 Corporation Ltd., By its
Managing Director
V.K.Shetty,
Aged about 53 years,
Shop premises No.34 and 35,
BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex, Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Syed Salim Ahmed,
O.S.3640/2010 Aged about 54 years,
S/o Syed Mohamood,
Shop premises No.53,
BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex,
Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
8 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
PLAINTIFF IN : S.A.Basith,
O.S.3641/2010 Aged about 70 years,
S/o Saheb Peeran,
Shop premises No.10,
BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex,
Bangalore-560 038.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Syed Haroon
O.S.3729/2010 Rep. by her GPA holder
Syed Akram Pasha,
S/o Syed Mohidden Pasha,
Aged about 47 years,
Shop premises No.71,
Austin Town BDA Shopping
Complex, Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Smt. Mary Peter,
O.S.3730/2010 Rep. by her GPA holder
B.M. Rajanna,
Aged about 55 years,
S/o Munishamappa,
Shop premises No.55,
Austin Town BDA Shopping
Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Mohammed Imtiaz
O.S.3731/2010 By his GPA holder
9 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
C.R.Sarasamma
M.K.Kumar,
Aged about 40 years,
S/o late Abdul Majeed,
Shop premises No.73,
Austin Town BDA Shopping
Complex, Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : M/s Noble Graphics
O.S.3732/2010 Rep. by its Proprietor
Rajiv Jaishankar Vakharia,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o Jaishankar Bagwandas,
Shop premises No.45,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Hajira Bi
O.S.3733/2010 Rep. by her GPA holder
K.Anandan Nair,
S/o v. Keshavapillai,
Aged about 47 years,
Shop premises No.25,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : H.Syed Nizamuddin,
O.S.3734/2010 Rep. by his GPA holder
10 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
K.K.Sobhana,
W/o K. Sreedharan,
Aged about 47 years,
Shop premises No.83,
Austin Town BDA Shopping
Complex, Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Yousuff
O.S.3735/2010 Rep. by his GPA holdedr
K.S.Sabeesh,
S/o K.Sreedharan,
Aged about 31 years,
Shop premises No. 81,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : V.Ravikumar
O.S.3736/2010 Rep. by his GPA holder
V.Bharanidharen,
Aged about 30 years,
S/o R.Vaikunteswaran,
Shop premises No. 67,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Abdul Khudoos,
O.S.3737/2010 Rep. by his GPA holder
M. Kasper Benjamin,
11 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
S/o Benjamin,
Aged about 39 years,
Shop premises No.01,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Dr. Bhanu Abraham Thomas
O.S.3738/2010 Rep. by his GPA holder
Dr. Suvendu Ghosh,
S/o Ghosh,
Aged about 37 years,
Shop premises No.03,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Sunil Anthony
O.S.3831/2010 Rep. by his GPA holder
M.Abdus Samad,
Aged about 24 years,
S/o Masood Ahmed.S.
Shop premises No.77,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : G.Krishnamurthy
O.S.3832/2010 By his GPA holder
Shobha Anand,
12 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
Aged about 33 years,
W/o K.Anandan Nair,
Shop premises No.24,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Sri Abraham
O.S.3833/2010 Aged about 55 years,
S/o A.D.Abraham,
Shop premises No.12,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Tabasum Nawaz
O.S.3847/2010 Rep. by her GPA holder
Mr. Leo B. Pinto
S/o Late S.Burland,
Aged about 45 years,
Shop premises No.86,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : Smt. V.Chandrika
O.S.3848/2010 Aged about 51 years,
W/o K.K.Kannan,
Shop premises No.50,
Austin Town BDA
13 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : S. Faiz Basith,
O.S.3849/2010 By his GPA holder
Mrs. Asha Joyce,
Aged about 47 years,
W/o R.K.Kancicka Prabhu,
Shop premises No.53,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
PLAINTIFF IN : K.R.Padmavathi W/o
O.S.3863/2010 Late Muniswamy,
Aged about 50 years,
Shop premises No.70,
Austin Town BDA
Shopping Complex,
Bangalore-560 047.
[By Sampat & Vatsala Law
Associates]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANTS IN ALL THE CASES:
1. The Deputy Secretary,
Bangalore Development Authority,
T.Chowdaiah Road,
14 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020.
2. Bangalore Development Authority,
Represented by its Commissioner,
T.Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
Bangalore-560 020.
[By Sri B.Lathif, Advocate]
IN O.S.2406/2010:
Date of institution of the : 7/4/2010
suit
Nature of the suit : For declaration and
injunction
Date of commencement of : 28/3/2013
recording of the evidence
Date on which the :
Judgment was 15/2/2016
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
5 9 8
(S.H. Hosagoudar)
XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
All the plaintiffs have filed these suits against
defendants for the relief of grant of declaratory decree
declaring that, order dated 11/1/2010 issued by the
first defendant under the name and style Vyapara
15 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
malige hanchike raddati adesha (ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀĽUÉAiÀÄ
ºÀAaPÉ gÀzÀÝw DzÉñÀ) bearing No. Bema. Apra. Aa Vasan.
751/2009-10 is illegal, unjust, unauthorized,
arbitrary and has been passed in utter violation of
principles of natural justice and as such null and void
inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs in so far
as it relates to revocation of the license of the plaint
schedule premises and for consequential relief of
Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants,
their men, servants from in any way interfering with
the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule premises.
2. In all, 41 plaintiffs have filed separate suits
against the same defendants in respect of the shop
premises comprising in Austin Town Shopping
Complex and also shops comprising in Indira Nagar
Shopping Complex. In all the suits, defendants are
one and the same and the properties involved in all
the cases are one and the same, and the reliefs sought
16 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
by the plaintiffs in all the suits are one and the same.
Hence, at the request of all the parties, all the suits
have been clubbed and common evidence is recorded
in O.S.2406/2010 and disposed off by this common
Judgment.
3. In all the suits, facts of the plaintiffs cases
are identical. In brief, the plaintiffs' cases in all the
cases are as under:
That the plaintiffs are in occupation of the suit
schedule premises on the strength of deed of license
granted in their favour by the second defendant
Bangalore Development Authority. The plaintiffs have
been carrying on their business in the plaint premises
and they are depending on the same for the livelihood
ever since of allotment of suit schedule premises
situated at Austin Town Shopping Complex and Indira
Nagar Shopping Complex. That the plaintiffs have
been prompt in paying the required fee fixed by the
defendants authority from time to time for the use and
occupation of the plaint premises to the knowledge of
17 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
defendants. Now, the defendant Board on the strength
of notice cum order dated 11/1/2010 under the
caption "Vyapara malige hanchike raddati adesha''
issued to the plaintiff claiming that in terms of clause
24 of the aforesaid alleged license deed, the premises
granted to the plaintiffs with respect to the occupying
of the plaint premises has been withdrawn by them
and as a consequences the plaintiffs shall be liable to
handover vacant possession of the plaint premises to
the defendants authority on or before expiry of six
months time from the date of aforesaid notice.
That the notice issued by the defendants
authority is illegal, unauthorized. The plaintiffs are
not at all in possession of suit schedule property as a
licensee, but they are in possession of the suit
schedule premises as a lessee. That the defendants
authority intend to construct multi-storied building by
demolishing the present structure and hence now
defendant authority trying to evict the plaintiffs from
the suit schedule premises. The said action of the
18 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
defendants is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust,
unauthorized and impermissible in law having regard
to the facts that plaintiffs have been in occupation of
the plaint premises and utilizing the same for their
livelihood.
It is relevant to mention that, the aforesaid
attempt on the part of the defendants authority in the
matter of repossessing the plaint premises and other
shop premises from the plaintiffs and other inmates of
the commercial complex in question has been
thwarted by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore vide its final common order dated
17/4/2009 passed in a batch of petitions. The Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka categorically held that, the
stand of defendant authority to repossess the entire
complex for the purpose of demolition and rebuilding
the complex has not been convincing and as a
consequences the orders of the defendants authority
under a caption "malige raddati adesha" came to be
19 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on
the ground that the same is not a speaking order.
The notice issued by the defendant authority is
illegal since plaintiffs are not the licensee under
defendants authority. There is no relationship of
licensor and licensee between the plaintiffs and
defendant in respect of suit schedule premises. On the
other hand, there is a relationship of lessor and lessee
between plaintiffs and defendants in respect of suit
schedule premises.
That the defendants have not issued any quit
notice as required under provisions of Transfer of
Property Act and hence defendants authority has no
right to evict the plaintiffs from the suit schedule
premises. Merely because the revised master plan
2015 depicts of having multi-storied building
intending multi-purpose activities and transport in
the locality, the same will not by itself confer
jurisdiction on the defendant authority to formulate
and idea to demolish present commercial complex,
20 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
that too without affording any opportunity to the
inmates of the plaintiffs who have vested right to
continue as a tenants of the premises in question
which has admittedly not been determined in
accordance with law.
That the plaintiffs are in occupation of the suit
schedule premises since long time. So called license
deed sought to be relied upon by the defendants
authority is not binding on the plaintiffs muchless
clause 24 sought to be relied upon by the defendant
authority in the impugned notice cum eviction order.
That the defendants with an ulterior motive have
issued notice to the plaintiffs to evict them from the
suit schedule premises. That the plaintiffs have given
suitable reply to the said notices. Now, defendants are
trying to evict the plaintiffs from the suit schedule
premises on the basis of alleged "Vyapara malige
hanchike raddati adesha". Hence, this suit.
4. In response to suit summons, in all the
suits, defendants appeared through their counsel and
21 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
filed written statement. The written statement filed by
the defendants in all the cases are similar in nature.
In brief, the contents of the written statement filed by
the defendants are as under:
That the suits of the plaintiffs are false, frivolous
and not maintainable either in law or on facts. That
the plaintiffs have not issued statutory notice under
Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority
Act 1964 to the defendants before filing the suit.
Hence, suits filed by the plaintiffs are not
maintainable. That the defendant authority is a
statutory body and it may function in accordance with
provisions of Bangalore Development Authority Act,
1976 and Rules 1975. That the defendants had issued
license to the plaintiffs who are carrying on business
at Indiranagar Shopping Complex and Austin Town
Shopping Complex and premises were allotted in
favour of plaintiffs by way of license to use the shop
for the purpose of conducting business with license
fee payable by the licensee as per terms agreed
22 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
between the parties and as such there is no dispute
regarding the same between the licensor and licensee.
Accordingly, a deed of license came to be entered into
between the parties and executed the same on the
terms agreed between the parties. That the defendant
authority decided to restructure the existing
commercial complex by demolishing the same and in
that place has decided to construct new commercial
complex which will be sophisticated, ultra-modern
with voluminous place for commercial establishment,
parking, malls, multiplex etc., to meet the needs of the
surrounding people. Hence, defendant has determined
the license issued by it in favour of plaintiffs by
invoking clause 24 of the Deed of License entered into
between the parties. That the license period has
already been expired. The relationship of the plaintiff
and that of the defendant is that of licensee and
licensor and there is no confusion or conflict with
regard to the relationship of plaintiff and defendant as
per deed of license executed by both the parties.
23 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
Therefore, plaintiffs are liable and supposed to leave
the premises in occupation in favour of licensor in
view of invoking clause 24 of the agreed terms as per
deed of license. The said deed of license is binding on
the plaintiffs and they cannot contend that deed of
license is not binding on them. That the defendant
authority has issued notice under caption "Vyapara
malige hanchike raddati adesha" as per order dated
11/1/2010 to the plaintiffs to vacate and handover
the premises within six months from the date of said
notice. But, plaintiffs have failed to vacate and
handover the premises as per order passed by the
defendant authority. Now, plaintiffs are in
unauthorized occupation of the suit schedule
premises and they have no right to continue the same.
On these grounds, defendants pray for dismissal of all
the suits.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
my predecessors in the office have framed following
issues in all the cases:
24 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
ISSUES IN O.S.2406/2010; 2407/2010;
2408/2010; 2409/2010;
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves
that the orders dated
11/1/2010 issued by the first
defendant with regard to
"Vyapra Maligeya Hanchike
Raddati Adesha" bearing No.
BEMA/APRA/a Vasam 751/09-
10 is illegal unjust,
unauthorized, arbitrary and is
in violation of the principles of
natural justice so far as it
relates to suit schedule
property as alleged in the
plaint?
(2) If so, whether the plaintiff
further proves his lawful
possession over the suit
schedule shop as on the date of
suit?
(3) Whether the plaintiff further
proves the alleged interference
with his peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit shop
by the defendants as alleged?
(4) Whether the defendants prove
that suit of the plaintiff is bad
for want of statutory notice
under section 64 of the
Bangalore Development
Authority Act, 1976 as
contended in the written
statement?
25 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for the relief of declaration as
prayed?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for perpetual injunction as
prayed?
(7) What decree or order?
ISSUES IN O.S.2802/2010;
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves
that her lawful possession and
enjoyment of the suit shop as
alleged in the plaint?
(2) If so, whether the plaintiff
further proves that the order
dated 11/1/2010 passed by the
first defendant called as Vypara
maligeya Hanchike Raddathi
Adesha bearing No.751/09-10
is illegal, unjust, unauthorized
and arbitrary and passed in
violation of principles of natural
justice as such null and void
and inoperative as alleged in
the plaint?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves the
alleged interference into her
possession and enjoyment of
the suit shop by the defendants
as alleged?
26 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
(4) Whether the defendant proves
that suit is bad for want of
statutory notice under Section
64 of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act?
(5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for
the relief of declaration as
prayed?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for the relief of permanent
injunction as claimed?
(7) What decree or order?
ISSUES IN O.S.2803/2010;
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves his
lawful possession over the suit
property as licencee under the
defendants as on the date of
suit as alleged?
(2) Whether the plaintiff further
proves that order dated
11/1/2010 passed by 1st
defendant and revocation of
licence of the suit property is
illegal, arbitrary and in
violation of principles of natural
justice and the same is not
binding on the plaintiff and
liable to be declared so as
alleged?
27 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
(3) Whether suit is not
maintainable for want of
statutory notice under Section
64 of BDA Act?
(4) Whether the defendants prove
that they have revoked the
licence of the plaintiff by
invoking clause 24 of the
licence deed as alleged?
(5) Whether plaintiff is entitled to
the relief of declaration and
permanent injunction against
defendants as prayed?
(6) To what relief, if any, the
parties are entitled?
ISSUES IN O.S.2969/2010;
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves his
legal right and lawful
possession over the schedule
property on the date of the
suit?
(2) Whether the plaintiff further
proves that order dated
11/1/2010 canceling the
allotment of the plaint schedule
shop premises to the plaintiff is
illegal, unjust, arbitrary and is
null and void and inoperative?
(3) Whether the plaintiff further
proves that the defendants are
28 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
interfering with his enjoyment
of suit schedule shop and are
threatening to take possession
of the suit schedule shop
premises illegally and
unauthorisedly in pursuance of
the order dated 11/1/2010?
(4) Whether the suit as brought is
not maintainable for non-
issuance of statutory notice
under Section 64 of BDA Act?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for the reliefs of declaration and
injunction as prayed?
(6) To what order or decree?
ISSUES IN O.S. 3399/2010; 3400/2010;
3530/2010; 3531/2010; 3532/2010; 3533/2010;
3631/2010; 3632/2010; 3633/2010; 3635/2010;
3636/2010; 3640/2010; 3641/2010; 3729/2010;
3730/2010; 3732/2010; 3733/2010; 3734/2010;
3735/2010; 3736/2010; 3737/2010; 3738/2010;
3831/2010; 3832/2010; 3833/2010; 3847/2010;
3848/2010; 3849/2010;
(1) Whether plaintiff proves that
there exists a jural relationship
of lessee and lessor between
29 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
himself and defendant no.2 in
respect of suit schedule
property as alleged in the
plaint?
(2) Whether the plaintiff further
proves that the orders so
passed by the first defendant
styled as Vyapara Maligeya
Hanchike Raddati Adesha
(ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀĽUÉAiÀÄ ºÀAaPÉ gÀzÀÝw DzÉñÀ)
impugned in this case is illegal
and just unauthorized,
arbitrary and against the
principles of natural justice and
hence null and void as alleged
in the plaint?
(3) Whether the plaintiff further
proves the alleged interference
into the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit
schedule shop premises by t he
defendants as alleged?
(4) Whether the defendant no.2
proves that suit of the plaintiff
is bad for want of notice under
Section 61 of BDA Act?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for the relief of declaration as
prayed?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for the relief of perpetual
injunction as claimed?
30 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
(7) What decree or order?
ISSUES IN O.S.3634/2010; 3637/2010;
3638/2010; 3639/2010;
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves her
lawful occupation of the suit
schedule property as a licensee
and have got right to continue
her occupation in the same as
alleged in the plaint?
(2) Whether the plaintiff further
proves that the orders dated
9/12/2009 issued by the first
defendant styled as "Vyapara
Maligeya Hanchike Raddathi
Adesha" is illegal and just
unauthorized, arbitrary and is
against the principles of natural
justice and hence null and void,
inoperative and not binding on
her as alleged in the plaint?
(3) Whether the plaintiff further
proves the alleged interference
into her peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property as alleged in
the plaint?
(4) Whether defendants prove that
suit of the plaintiff is bad for
want of notice under Section 64
of BDA Act?
31 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for the relief of declaration as
prayed?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for permanent injunction as
prayed?
(7) What decree or order?
ISSUES IN O.S.3863/2010;
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves
that there exists the
relationship of lessor and lessee
in between defendants and
herself as alleged in the plaint?
(2) If so, whether the plaintiff
further proves that the ofedrs
dated 9/12/2009 issued by the
first defendant called as
"Vyapara Maligeya Anchike
Raddathi Adesha" in respect of
suit shop is illegal, unjust,
unauthorized, arbitrary and is
passed in violation of principles
of natural justice and hence
void as alleged in the plaint?
(3) Whether the plaintiff further
proves the alleged interference
into her peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit by
the defendants as alleged?
(4) Whether the defendants prove
that the plaintiff is the chronic
32 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
defaulter in payment of its fees
as contended in the written
statement?
(5) Whether defendants further
prove that suit of the plaintiff is
not properly valued for the
purpose of court fees as
contended in the written
statement?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for relief of declaration as
prayed?
(7) Whether plaintiff is entitled for
injunction as claimed?
(8) What decree or order?
6. In all these cases, the suit schedule
premises involved is in respect of two Shopping
Complex i.e., BDA Indiranagar Shopping
Complex and Austin Town Shopping Complex,
and the suit filed by the plaintiffs are similar in
nature. There are in all 41 suits and issues are
framed in all the suits separately before clubbing
all these suits and there are different issues are
framed. In order to avoid repetition and
33 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
confusion, since the reliefs claimed in all the
suits are one and the same, it is just and proper
to frame identical issues in all these suits.
Hence, the following identical issues are framed
in all the cases for consideration on the basis of
pleadings of the parties, instead of considering
the above issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove
that there exists the
relationship of lessor and lessee
in between defendants and
plaintiffs as alleged in the
plaint?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs prove
that the orders passed by the
first defendant with regard to
"Vyapra Maligeya Hanchike
Raddati Adesha" is illegal
unjust, unauthorized, arbitrary
and is in violation of the
principles of natural justice so
far as it relates to suit schedule
property as alleged in the
plaint?
(3) If so, whether the plaintiffs
further prove their lawful
possession over the suit
schedule shops as on the date
of suit?
34 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
(4) Whether the plaintiffs further
prove the alleged interference
with their peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit
shops by the defendants as
alleged?
(5) Whether the defendants prove
that suits of the plaintiffs are
bad for want of statutory
notice under section 64 of the
Bangalore Development
Authority Act, 1976 as
contended in the written
statement?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are
entitled for the relies as sought
for?
(7) What decree or order?
7. In these suits, plaintiff in O.S.2406/2010,
the plaintiff in O.S.No.3533/2010 and GPA holder of
plaintiff in O.S.No.3629/2010 are examined
themselves as PWs.1 to 3 respectively and produced
in all 61 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P61 and closed their side of evidence. On the other
hand, defendant Bangalore Development Authority got
examined its official as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1
and closed their side of evidence.
35 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
8. Heard the arguments on both sides and
perused the entire records of the case. During the
course of argument, learned counsel for the plaintiffs
has relied upon following decisions:
1. AIR 2004 SC 2103;
2. AIR 1965 SC 610;
3. AIR 1976 SC 1813;
4. AIR 1959 SC 1262;
5. (2006) 4 SCC 214;
6. AIR 1977 SC 619 (1);
7. AIR 1968 SC 620 (1);
8. AIR 1989 SC 2097 (1);
9. 2009 AIR SCW 7580;
9. My findings on the above issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1) ............ In the negative;
Issue No. 2) ............ In the negative;
Issue No. 3) ............ In the negative;
Issue No. 4) ............ In the negative;
Issue No. 5) ............ In the affirmative;
36 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
Issue No. 6) ............ In the negative;
Issue No. 7) ............ As per final order for
the following:
10. ISSUE NO.1: In these cases, all the
plaintiffs contended that, they are the lessees of the
suit schedule premises and there exists relationship of
lessor and lessee in between defendants and
themselves. But, defendants denied that, plaintiffs are
the lessees of the suit schedule premises. Defendants
contended that, plaintiffs are the licensee of suit
schedule premises. As per this issue no.1, heavy
burden lies on the plaintiffs to show that, they are the
lessees of the suit schedule premises.
11. In this case, plaintiffs got examined three
witnesses as PWs. 1 to 3. In their evidence, they
reiterated the plaint averments. PW.1 in his cross-
examination clearly admitted that, his license was
issued in the year 1983 and renewed in 1999 and
license period was 5 years. Thereafter, his license is
37 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
not renewed. From the above evidence of PW.1, it is
much clear that, plaintiffs have occupied the suit
schedule premises as a licensee but not as a lessee.
PW.1 further in his cross-examination stated that, he
has read the deed of license. He further admitted that
under clause 24 of the license, Bangalore
Development Authority is empowered to revoke the
license by giving 6 months time to the occupant.
Further, he admitted that Ex.P5 is the license issued
on 3/6/1999. Hence, from the above evidence of
PW.1, it is much clear that, plaintiffs are in
possession of the suit schedule premises as a licensee.
12. PW.2 also in his cross-examination clearly
admitted that under clause 24 of the license,
defendant Bangalore Development Authority is
empowered to revoke the license by giving 6 months
time. He further admitted that, defendant Bangalore
Development Authority has given six months time to
them under the revocation order. PW.2 in his cross-
examination had clearly admitted that, he has paid
38 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
license fee regularly till today. The above evidence of
PW.2 also clearly shows that plaintiffs are in
possession of the suit schedule premises as a licensee.
13. PW.3 in his cross-examination clearly
admitted that, license to shop no.35 is issued in 1982
and period of license is six years. He further admitted
that, occupants can be evicted from the suit schedule
property after service of notice of six months under
licences issued to the occupants. He further stated
that license fee of Rs.7032/- per month. He further
admitted that there were arrears of fees while issuing
notice dated 10/1/2010. Hence, the evidence of PW.3
also clearly shows that all the plaintiffs are in
possession of the suit schedule property as a licensee
but not as a lessees as contended by them. In these
cases, plaintiffs themselves produced deed of license
which is marked as Ex.P5. It clearly shows that
plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule property
by virtue of deed of license.
39 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
14. Further, on perusal of Ex.P5, it clearly
shows that all the plaintiffs are licensees of the suit
schedule premises. In this case, plaintiffs themselves
produced letter of Bangalore Development Authority
for renewal of license which is marked Ex.P45. This
Ex.P45 also clearly indicates that, plaintiffs are the
licensee of the suit schedule premises. In this case,
plaintiffs also produced Deed of License dated
15/10/1996 which is marked as Ex.P46. It is also
clearly shows that plaintiffs are in occupation of the
suit schedule premises as a licensee. Hence, the oral
and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiffs
themselves clearly shows that they are the licensees in
respect of suit schedule premises.
15. It is also important to note that, plaintiffs
themselves in para 2 of the plaint admits that they are
in occupation of suit schedule premises by virtue and
on the strength of deed of license executed in their
favour by the defendants. Hence, averments made in
40 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
the plaint itself clearly shows that plaintiffs are in
occupation of suit schedule premises as a licensee.
16. It is also important to note that, the
plaintiffs themselves have filed writ petitions before
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.7421 of
2009 and clubbed with other matters by challenging
the order dated 3/3/2009 passed by the Bangalore
Development Authority. The Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka after hearing both sides has disposed off
the said writ petition giving liberty to the Bangalore
Development Authority to go ahead in accordance
with law by taking such steps as are open to it in law
for getting the petitioners (plaintiffs) evicted. The
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para No.4 of its
order clearly held that, "It is not in dispute that,
petitioners have occupied certain portions of the
shopping complex belonging to Bangalore
Development Authority as licensees. The period of
licensee is also expired. However, the petitioners
41 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
are in possession of properties even thereafter by
paying license fee."
17. The above observation made by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka also clearly shows that,
plaintiffs are the licensees of the suit schedule
premises. Hence, from the evidence on record, it is
much clear that, plaintiffs are the licensees and
defendant Bangalore Development Authority is the
licensor of the suit schedule premises.
18. In this case, even though plaintiffs
contended that, they are the lessees of the suit
schedule premises but they have not produced any
oral and documentary evidence to establish that, they
are the lessees of the suit schedule premises. Hence,
in the absence of oral and documentary evidence, the
bare contention of the plaintiffs that they are the
lessees of suit schedule premises cannot be accepted.
Even the oral and documentary evidence adduced by
the plaintiffs themselves clearly establishes that they
are the licensees of the suit schedule premises and
42 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
they occupied the suit schedule premises by virtue of
deed of license and they have paid license fee to the
Bangalore Development Authority. Hence, from the
evidence on record, it is much clear that, plaintiffs are
the licensees of the suit schedule premises.
19. From the evidence on record, it is much
clear that, plaintiffs are the licensees of the suit
schedule property. Hence, Section 52 of the Indian
Easementary Act, 1982 comes into operation. Thus,
as per Section 52 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882
licensee is defined which reads as under:
"Where one person grants to
another, or to a definite number of
other persons a right delinquent
official or continue to delinquent
official in or upon the immovable
property of the grantor, something
which would, in the absence of such
right be unlawful, an such right
does not amount to an easement or
an interest in the property, the
right is called a license"
43 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
20. Hence, from the Section 52 of the Indian
Easement Act, 1882 and from the averments made in
the plaint and also from the evidence adduced by the
plaintiffs it is much clear that, plaintiffs are the
licensees and defendants are the licensors.
21. DW.1 also in her evidence clearly stated
that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule
property as a licensee. Therefore, the status of the
parties is that of licensor and licensee and not one
contended by the plaintiffs that they are the lessees of
the suit schedule premises. As already stated in this
case, plaintiffs have not produced any documentary
evidence to prove that they are the lessees of the suit
schedule premises. On the other hand, evidence on
record clearly shows that plaintiffs have occupied the
suit schedule premises as a licensee. Therefore, there
exists a relationship of licensor and licensee between
the parties. But, there is no jural relationship of lessor
and lessee between defendants and plaintiffs as
44 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
contended by them. Plaintiffs failed to prove issue
no.1. Accordingly, I answer issue no.1 in the negative.
22. ISSUE NO.2: In this case, plaintiffs
contended that orders passed by the first defendant
called "Vyapara Malige Hanchike Raddati Adesha" in
respect of suit shop is illegal, arbitrary and violation of
principles of natural justice. In this case, plaintiffs
produced said notices which are marked as Ex.P9 to
Ex.P44. On perusal of the same, it clearly shows that,
Bangalore Development Authority determined the
license issued by it in favour of plaintiffs by invoking
the clause 24 of the Deed of License entered into
between the parties and cancelled the license issued
in favour of plaintiffs.
23. PW.1 in his cross-examination clearly
admitted that, Bangalore Development Authority
issued six months notice prior to eviction as required
under clause 24 of the license. He further admitted
that, under clause 24 of the license, Bangalore
Development Authority is empowered to revoke the
45 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
license by giving six months time to the occupants.
Hence, evidence of PW.1 itself clearly shows that, as
per clause 24 of the license, Bangalore Development
Authority is empowered to revoke license by giving six
months time to the occupants of the suit schedule
premises.
24. PW.2 also in his cross-examination clearly
admitted that under clause 24 of the license
Bangalore Development Authority is empowered to
revoke license by giving six months time. He further
admitted that, Bangalore Development Authority has
given six months time to them under the revocation
order.
25. PW.3 also in his cross-examination clearly
admitted that, occupants can be evicted from the suit
schedule premises after service of notice of six months
under license issued to the occupants. Hence, PWs.1
to 3 themselves in their cross-examination clearly
admitted that, Bangalore Development Authority is
empowered to revoke license by giving six months
46 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
time and accordingly, Bangalore Development
Authority has given six months time to the plaintiffs
under revocation order to evict the plaintiffs.
Therefore, the order passed by the defendants is legal
and valid. While answering issue no.1, it is held that
plaintiffs are the licensees of the suit schedule
premises and there exist the relationship of licensor
and licensee in between defendants and plaintiffs.
26. It is also admitted fact that plaintiffs have
occupied the suit schedule premises by virtue of deed
of license i.e., Ex.P5 and they are the licensees of the
suit schedule premises. Clause 24 of the said License
Deed specifically envisages as under:
"If at any time, during the period of
these 5 years, the licensor decided to
dispose of the premises by sale or
auction or long term lease, he reserves
the right to do so after revoking the
licence by giving 6 months notice to the
Licensee''
47 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
27. From the evidence on record it is much
clear that, plaintiffs are in occupation of suit schedule
premises as a licensee and defendants are the
licensors. As per clause 24 of Deed of License though
plaintiffs were permitted to occupy the suit schedule
premises for a period of 5 years, it is the discretion of
the Bangalore Development Authority to continue or
discontinue the plaintiffs in the suit schedule
premises.
28. It is also important to note that, license
issued in favour of plaintiffs is not a irrevocable
license. As already stated that there is no relationship
between lessor and lessee between the parties. It is
the discretion of the Bangalore Development Authority
to take appropriate action against plaintiffs to evict
them from the suit schedule premises. The Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka already permitted the
Bangalore Development Authority to take steps
against plaintiffs in accordance with law. Whenever
defendants required the premises the plaintiffs have to
48 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
vacate the same and surrender the premises to the
defendants.
29. The defendant authority is a statutory body
and it may function in accordance with provisions of
Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 and Rules
1975. Now, Bangalore Development Authority has
decided to reconstruct the existing commercial
complex by demolishing the same and in that place
has decided to construct new commercial complex to
meet the needs of the surrounding people. Under such
circumstances, the Bangalore Development Authority
has determined the license issued by it in favour of
plaintiffs by invoking clause 24 of the Deed of License
entered into between the parties and as such plaintiffs
cannot find fault with the licensor.
30. It is also important to note that, Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka while disposing the writ
petitions referred to above has permitted the
Bangalore Development Authority to take steps to
evict the occupants of the shopping complex in
49 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
accordance with law. Accordingly, Bangalore
Development Authority has taken steps to evict the
plaintiffs from the suit schedule premises by issuing
notice styled as "Vyapara Malige Hanchike raddati
Adesha".
31. Further, evidence on record clearly shows
that Bangalore Development Authority has given six
months time to the plaintiffs to vacate the schedule
premises as per Clause 24 of the Deed of License.
Hence, the said notices issued by the defendants i.e.,
"Vyapara Malige Hanchike Raddati Adesha" is in
accordance with law. The evidence on record clearly
shows that the relationship of plaintiffs and that of
defendants is that of the licensee and licensor and
there is no confusion or conflict with regard to the
relationship of plaintiffs and defendants as per Deed
of License executed by both the parties. Therefore,
plaintiffs are liable and supposed to leave the
premises in occupation in favor of licensor in view of
the invoking clause 24 of the agreed terms as per
50 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
Deed of License. Admittedly, plaintiffs are in
occupation of the suit schedule premises by virtue of
Deed of License. Hence, plaintiffs cannot be
contending that Deed of License is not binding on
them and clause 24 of Deed cannot be invoked.
32. Further, the licensee cannot dictate the
terms to the licensor as to invoking clause whether it
is 24 or otherwise for repossessing the premises.
Hence, notices sent by the Bangalore Development
Authority are in accordance with provisions of law and
they are binding on the plaintiffs. That the grant made
by the defendants to the plaintiffs is only to use the
premises in question without being entitled to
exclusive possession of the premises in question by
virtue of agreement in their favour by creating license
in favour of plaintiffs. Such being the case, it cannot
be said that, expressions, licensor and licensee as
contemplated under Indian Easement Act are now
pressed into service by the defendants.
51 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
33. It is pertinent to note that, under the Deed
of License, the licensor had reserved the right to
terminate or revoke the license in default of payment
of license fee by the licensee. Evidence on record
clearly shows that even plaintiffs have not paid license
fee in time and they are the chronic defaulters in
paying the license fees as and when same fell due and
same is evidenced by their own documents produced
before the Court.
34. As already stated, defendant has issued
notice to the plaintiffs by invoking clause 24 of the
Deed of License duly executed by the parties to the
suit as stated by the plaintiffs in para no.2 of their
plaint, for determining the occupation of the premises
by the plaintiffs as per agreed term between the
parties as they are bound by the contract and its
obligation. Hence, orders passed by the Bangalore
Development Authority styled as "Vyapara Malige
Hanchike Raddati Adesha" in respect of suit schedule
premises are legal and valid and also in accordance
52 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
with law and Bangalore Development Authority on
invoking clause 24 of the Deed of License has issued
above said orders to the plaintiffs demanding them to
vacate the premises within Six months from the date
of receipt of the said notice. Hence, "Vyapara Malige
Hanchike Raddati Adesha" issued by the Bangalore
Development Authority is legal and valid under law. At
any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that,
above "Vyapara Malige Hanchike Raddati Adesha" is
illegal, unjust looking to the relationship between the
parties. Plaintiffs failed to prove issue no.2.
Accordingly, I answer Issue no.2 in the negative.
35. ISSUE NO.3: While answering issue no.1,
it is held that, the relationship between plaintiffs and
defendants is that of a licensee and licensor. While
answering issue no.2, it is held that "Vyapara Malige
Hanchike Raddati Adesha" is legal and valid and
binding on the plaintiffs. The evidence on record
clearly shows that, plaintiffs are occupied the suit
schedule premises by virtue of Deed of License. The
53 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
relationship of plaintiffs and that of the defendants is
that of the licensee and licensor. That the defendants
by invoking clause 24 of the Deed of license issued
notices to the plaintiffs to vacate the suit schedule
premises within six months of receipt of said notices.
As already stated, "Vyapara Malige Hanchike Raddati
Adesha" is legal and valid. Admittedly, the said notices
are duly served upon plaintiffs. After receipt of the
said order, plaintiffs have failed to vacate the
premises. The defendants authority has revoked the
license granted to plaintiffs to carry on business in the
premises. Hence, now plaintiffs are in unauthorized
occupation of the suit schedule premises.
36. The plaintiffs who are licensees cannot
dictate terms to the licensor as to invoking clause 24
of the Deed of License. The defendant authority has
permitted the plaintiffs to carry on business in the
suit schedule premises under Deed of License. Now,
the said license has revoked by the defendant
authority. Now, plaintiffs cannot contend that Deed of
54 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
License is not binding on them and clause 24 of Deed
of License cannot be invoked. Defendant authority has
permitted the plaintiffs for a period of 5 years. Now,
the said 5 years period of license has been expired. It
is the discretion of the defendants to continue or
discontinue the plaintiffs in the suit schedule
premises. Now, defendants authority in order to put
up a multiplex complex by demolishing existing
complex has revoked the license granted to the
plaintiffs. Hence, plaintiffs are in unauthorized
occupation of the suit schedule premises and they are
not in lawful possession of the suit schedule premises
as on the date of suit. Plaintiffs failed to prove Issue
No.3. Accordingly, I answer Issue no.3 in the negative.
37. ISSUE NO.4: The evidence on record
clearly shows that, plaintiffs are the licensee of the
suit schedule premises. The relationship of the
plaintiffs and that of the defendants is that of the
licensee and licensor. Further, evidence on record
clearly shows that defendants authority by invoking
55 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
clause 24 of the Deed of License has issued notice to
the plaintiffs to vacate the premises by granting six
months time. The defendant authority is a statutory
body. Now, defendant authority has decided to
restructure the existing commercial complex by
demolishing the same to meet the needs of
surrounding people. Hence, defendants has
determined the license issued by it in favour of
plaintiffs by invoking Clause 24 of the Deed of License
entered into between the parties and as such plaintiffs
who are licensees cannot find fault with the licensor.
The act of the licensor will not amounts to any
interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule premises since
plaintiffs are the licensee of the said premises and
their license has been revoked by the defendants
authority in accordance with law by invoking clause
24 of the Deed of License. Plaintiffs failed to prove
Issue No.4. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.4 in the
negative.
56 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
38. ISSUE NO.5: In this case defendants
contended that suits of the plaintiffs are bad for want
of statutory notice as required under Section 64 of the
Bangalore Development Authority Act. It appears from
the evidence on record that prior to filing of these
suits, plaintiffs have not at all issued statutory notice
as required under Section 64 of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act to the defendants. The
defendants are the Bangalore Development Authority
and governed by the provisions of Bangalore
Development Authority Act.
39. It is pertinent to note that if any persons
intend to file suit against Bangalore Development
Authority, he has to issue statutory notice to the
Bangalore Development Authority as required under
Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority
Act prior to filing of this suit. In this case, plaintiffs
have not produced any copy of the notice to show that
they have issued statutory notice to the defendants as
required under Section 64 of the Bangalore
57 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
Development Authority Act. Hence, suit of the
plaintiffs is bad for non-issuance of statutory notice.
Defendants proved Issue No.5. Accordingly, I answer
Issue no.5 in the affirmative.
40. ISSUE NO.6: Plaintiffs have filed these
suits against defendants for the relief of grant of
declaratory decree declaring that, order dated
11/1/2010 issued by the first defendant under the
name and style Vyapara malige hanchike raddati
adesha (ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀĽUÉAiÀÄ ºÀAaPÉ gÀzÀÝw DzÉñÀ) bearing No.
Bema. Apra. Aa Vasan. 751/2009-10 is illegal, unjust,
unauthorized, arbitrary and has been passed in utter
violation of principles of natural justice and as such
null and void inoperative and not binding on the
plaintiffs in so far as it relates to revocation of the
license of the plaint schedule premises and for
consequential relief of Permanent Injunction
restraining the defendants, their men, servants from
in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful
58 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
premises.
41. While answering issue no.1, it is held that,
the relationship between plaintiffs and that of
defendants is that of a licensee and licensor. While
answering issue no.2, it is held that, "Vyapara Malige
Hanchike Raddati Adesha" is legal and valid and in
accordance with law and same is binding on the
plaintiffs. While answering issue no.3, it is held that
now plaintiffs are in unauthorized occupation of the
suit schedule premises. Further, while answering
issue no.4, it is held that plaintiffs failed to prove
alleged interference by the defendants. Further, while
answering issue no.5, it is held that suits of the
plaintiffs are not maintainable for want of statutory
notice as required under the provisions of Section 64
of the Bangalore Development Authority Act.
42. The evidence on record clearly shows that,
the relationship of plaintiffs and that of defendants is
that of a licensee and licensor. The defendants
59 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
authority by invoking clause 24 of the Deed of License
has revoked the license granted to the plaintiffs. Now,
plaintiffs are in unauthorized occupation of the suit
schedule premises. Therefore, the plaintiffs are liable
and supposed to leave the premises in question in
favour of the defendants in view of the invoking clause
24 of the agreed terms as per Deed of License.
43. Further, plaintiffs who are licensees cannot
dictate terms to the licensor as to invoking the clause
24 of the Deed of License. The notice sent by the
defendants to the plaintiffs demanding them to vacate
the suit schedule premises within six months of
receipt of the said notice is legal and valid and in
accordance with the provisions of law. The Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka also permitted the defendant
authority to proceed against plaintiffs in accordance
with law. In these cases defendants have taken steps
against plaintiffs to evict them from the suit schedule
premises in accordance with law. That the "Vyapara
Malige Hanchike Raddati Adesha" issued by
60 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
defendants to the plaintiffs is legal and valid and in
accordance with law and it cannot be said that it is
illegal and null and void. The defendants authority by
invoking clause 24 of the Deed of License has issued
said notice/order styled as "Vyapara Malige Hanchike
Raddati Adesha" and said notice is legal and valid.
Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs of
declaration as sought for in respect of the said
notice/order.
44. Further, the evidence on record clearly
shows that defendants already revoked license
granted to the plaintiffs. Hence, now plaintiffs are in
unauthorized occupation of the suit schedule
premises. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for the
relief of Permanent Injunction as sought for. In these
cases, plaintiffs are not entitled for any reliefs.
Plaintiffs failed to prove Issue No.6. Accordingly, I
answer Issue No.6 in the negative.
61 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
45. ISSUE NO.7: From my above discussions
and reasoning, all the suits of the plaintiffs are liable
to be dismissed. In the result, I pass the following:
All the suits filed by the plaintiffs
are hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
Original Judgment shall be kept in
O.S.2406/2010 and the copies
thereof in other connected suits.
***
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 15th day of February 2016.] [S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 B.R.Harish
62 O.S.2406/2010 & Series
PW.2 B.M.Rajanna
PW.3 L.Kumar
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW.1 Kamalamma
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P 1 Allotment letter dated 31/7/1982 in O.S.2407/2010 Ex.P 2 Possession Certificate dated 7/8/1992 in O.S.2407/2010 Ex.P 3 Permission letter dated 5/5/1990 in O.S.2407/2010 Ex.P 4 Another permission letter regarding water supply and drainage facility dated 31/5/1990 in O.S.2407/2010 Ex.P 5 Deed of license dated 3/6/1990 in O.S.2407/2010 Ex.P 6 Permission letter dated 9/7/1999 in O.S.2407/2010 Ex.P 7 Communication dated 5/6/1999 regarding payment of advance rent in O.S.2407/2010 Ex.P 8 Latest tax paid receipt in O.S.2407/2010 Ex.P 9 Notice copies of other plaintiffs To issued by defendant BDA [marked Ex.P 44 subject to objection] Ex.P 45 Notice for renewal of license Ex.P 46 Deed of license, renewal of license, To postal receipt, postal Ex.P 50 acknowledgement, challan Ex.P 51 Copy of legal notice dated To 10/2/2010, postal receipt and Ex.P 53 acknowledgement. 63 O.S.2406/2010 & Series Ex.P 54 Challan Ex.P 55 Notice dated 13/3/2010 Ex.P 56 Postal receipt Ex.P 57 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P 58 Letter dated 5/6/2008 Ex.P 59 Letter dated 26/6/2008 Ex.P 60 Allotment letter dated 4/8/2008 Ex.P 61 Copy of the resolution along with endorsement dated 30/9/2015 pertaining to Indiranagar Shopping Complex and Austin Town Shopping Complex
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D1 Authorisation letter issued by the Deputy Secretary [S.H. HOSAGOUDAR] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, BANGALORE.
66 O.S.2406/2010 & Series