A N Satyanarayana vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

A N Satyanarayana vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 4*" DAY or NOVEMBER 20:9:

BEFORE :

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN SHANTAN§:GOtl:DAR  "  

 

wan PETITIQN Ng§.341ﬁ7-§¢l3ll4§bZ2§.)3; _ I" » '
Bggwggn:  

1. A.N.Satyanarayana

Aged about 53 years,
No.2, Daddarao Chouitry,
Market Cross Road,  "

Chinthamani Town.

2. Krishnamurthy'«.... «_ g 
Aged about.5,,6 y*ea._l's, V _  
No.6, Dadiorad'Ch'o'ultryi,'j*.--   ,--
Karnataka Tai'loi:;s,, _f  "
Market"Cr0ssiiRoa"t$,"  ,
Chlntnvamanig'Fow.n}«  ' - ..Petitioners

(By Sri G.Vi'krarn.,  " 

_._And  V 

 :Sta_te_,of.KaA.rn.ataka

_ Rep' by ..i,ts~ Secreta ry

" .Reyenue'_'D_ep,a'rtment (Muzrai)
M,__S. Bui.ldi:f_ngl, Vidhanasoudha
Bangavlore-"S60 001.

K  nT.%3e Commissioner

 Religious and Charltable
'.EnLi'owments in Karnataka
lé/lalai Mahadeshwara Building

 " ~-Chamrajpet, Banga|ore~56O O18.



3. The Deputy Commissioner
Chikkaballapur District
Chikkabailapur.

4. The Thasiidar
ChintamaniTaluk,Chintamani      
Chikkaballapur District.    '..._Respon__dents

(By Sri Narendra Prasad, HCGP.,4_)_.

These Writ Petitions are filledvlunder Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution ofsIndia_.rp'i'aying"-~r.to declare that the
petitioners cannot be disp'-oss~ess--ed "w'i»th'out any valid order
and injunction not to interfere...w:ith__ithe,possession of the
petitioners shop No.2 &...6_of'.Dada"xraoI,;C'houltry, Market
Cross, Chintamani, '---otherwise:thralnddue' process of law by the
respondents i\_Eo_.4 ;'3s'; _per'th:'e,_ instiructi'on'sof R2 and R3.

These» l5étit.io'ns=corning..o§n for preliminary hearing in 'B' group thi'svl'.da_y','r.the4VCourt made the following :

tgrgnben ifi'her_petiti'on_ers have sought for a declaration that they bie'idiVs"p_ossessed without any valid order. They have Aa'!s_o-fsough-t_:_f'oArV-an injunction against the respondents from _ interferin__g' vintlh the possession of the petitioners except Viothegrwise than due process of law. '*2. Petitioners are the tenants in respect of certain T premises as mentioned in the writ petitions on monthly rent. l'-i'-.

_3_ The premises belong to Muzarai Department. According to the petitioners, they have been carrying on the business in the shops since a iong time. They allege that respondent No.4 came to the spot and threatened the dire consequences if they do not v-ac'ate.th7e p.reih.i4;:es~yvitfiviynww' a week. Immediately thereafter,>'1'.th:eA.se'lwritﬁpetitiorj':-3.[are filed.

3. Sri Narendra VP-r.asad,_.il'ea.r'ned"-Government Advocate on instructions submitsélthat :l'ease.i_4"'granted in favour of the peti.ti~0-ners"i;ha§:;¢xpired.V'inﬁ ti-ig.._.,'ear 1995 itself. However, the petitioners in possession of the property.

They haveuxnoit vpaVi'd__tl'.e" rents as prescribed from 1995. The ~"'~,...peti._'Lf'i':'c«>.nEe__rs Vposs"e'ss.i._o_r1ewas regularised till the year 2000. HoVviiever_fth'e.Tpetitioners have continued in the premises unapLj'thoriésed_!v5' thereafter and therefore action has been 'w._Vtaken..against the petitioners to take possession in r~:ifacco"rtilance with iaw.

4. It is relevant to note that certain of the petiti_oners herein had approached this Court by filing No.5I093/2004 & connected matters que:sm'a:haeei enhancement of rent in respect ovf-the..pre_n1ises.§I.'h Tné'i'.~savi.d writ petitions were disposed on the order Annexure--' C' produhcedattono"tne'writ_: p'e.ti'tion"j, with" V the foliowing observations :

" Further the petitiiohers~'V.;5hali"'deposit the rent arrears wiih;_ti'1e :res;9or}derits«i_"on._or before the day "representation. It is further" :1 clear" petitioners default in depositingV'3'«the.c:V'r'.t.!7t. arrears, they are not enytithled V 'toconsideration of their representation_s§'._V hhliieedless to observe that it is ..,{gIuways vvﬂtoithe respondents to take the ,oossession the shop premises of the V' hhpetitioiﬁe,-rsjand recover the rental amounts from accordance with law. No order as to " ¢0sts-''°h A spite of the aforementioned observations, according togthe Eearned Government Advocate, the petitioners have W d 5 ., not deposited the entire rents and that the petitioners have been occupying the premises unauthorisedly.

5. Be that as it may, this Court does no4t..Vw.ishV_ to comment on that aspect of the matter at this the petitioners are occupying the premises unautii-o1riise'd.|y',gVit__isa open for the respondents to ini't4iat=e=.a'cti'o.h'wa'gai'h:Sté"the petitioners for taking possession-_of the. premiisiesgivn.,qVu.esti%onVi* in accordance with law. 'i_"_hi"s..:_Court."int_:v'Writ Petition No.51093/2004 & connected 'maitter"'--(gmentioned supra) had already t

6. -also brotug-ht to the notice of the Court by

-"i~u_V|ear:'i_éd E{3oyernm'ent.._.Advocate that the respondents have .V,ta.ken_s'te_psfto'initiate proceedings against the petitioners under thenjpriotvisions of Public Premises (Eviction of

7.iJnautii.o;rised Occupants) Act, 1971 by issuing notice. A fi~'ioVyiie*ver, no further action is taken as on this day. v\.

*6-

7. In view of the totaiity of the facts and circumstances, it is open for the respondents to take possession of the properties in question from the peti:ti'oners and recover the rents due, if any, from them in~«~a.cg:o'_r:d"anCe with law.

Writ Petitions are disposed of>ecto'a-di'ngEy.--ti: . V'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court