M. Shivanna vs The Commissioner on 6 January, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M. Shivanna vs The Commissioner on 6 January, 2023

Bench: S.G. Pandit

                             1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                        BEFORE

         THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

        WRIT PETITION No.37191/2015 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

M SHIVANNA
S/O LATE MOLLE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.59, 1ST MAIN ROAD
1ST CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT
NAYANDAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-560039.
                                    ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SIDDHANT S DARIRA, ADV.)

AND:

  1. THE COMMISSIONER
     BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     HUDSON CIRCLE
     BANGALORE-560 002.

   2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (MARKET-WEST)
      BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
      SRI KRISHNARAJENDRA MARKET
      BANGALORE-560 005.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AMIT DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RENEW THE PETITIONER'S
LEASE IN THE WAKE OF OPTION EXERCISED BY HIM AND IN
TERMS OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 13.01.2015 (ANNEX-B)
AND ETC.

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                2


                       ORDER

Heard Sri Siddhant S. Darira, learned counsel for Sri L. Govindraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner was allotted the schedule space on 08.10.2015 with the conditions that the petitioner to pay Rs.1,836/- per month together with security deposit of Rs.23,868/- p.a. On 13.01.2015 lease in favour of the petitioner was renewed and rent was enhanced to Rs.3,162/- subject to further enhancement at the rate of 5% on renewal. It is the grievance of the petitioner that cheque issued by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.7,106/- dated 17.06.2015 was returned. In the said circumstances, petitioner apprehended eviction from the scheduled shop premises hence he is before this Court. It is also submitted that Corporation had served a caveat on the petitioner, basing its claim on the resolution bearing No.164/2015- 16 purporting to initiate action to disposses the 3 petitioner. Thereafter notice (Annexure-M) dated 07.09.2015 is issued which is under challenge. Learned counsel would submit that only prayer of the petitioner is that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the scheduled shop premises without following due process of law. In that regard, learned counsel places reliance on the decision dated 31.07.2021 in W.P.No.14979/2015 (LB-BMP), thus he prays for allowing the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents would point out from notice (Annexure-M) dated 07.09.2015 that the Corporation has intimated the petitioner that separate action would be initiated under Section 370 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short the '1976 Act') for eviction of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no cause of action for the petitioner to challenge notice (Annexure-M). Thus he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view, that the instant writ petition could be disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.

5. A perusal of notice (Annexure-M) dated 07.09.2015 discloses that allotment of schedule shop premises to the petitioner is held as unauthorized and the last portion of the notice reads as follows :-

"¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ½UÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ «ZÁgÀªÁV PÉ.JA.¹. PÁAiÉÄÝ 1976gÀ PÀ®A 370gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ £ÉÆÃn¸ï ¤Ãr, vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ."

A reading of the above makes it clear that respondents have made it clear that a separate proceedings would be initiated under Section 370 of the 1976 Act for eviction of the petitioner. In view of the above, there is no cause of action for the petitioner to challenge the notice (Annexure-M) dated 07.09.2015. It is needless to 5 observe that in any event petitioner cannot be dispossessed on the basis of notice (Annexure-M) dated 07.09.2015. I am sure, the petitioner could be dispossessed by the respondents only by following due process of law.

With the above the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE NG* CT:bms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court