Bangalore District Court
D.Umpathy vs The Secretary And Competent Authority on 8 April, 2021
[C.R.P. 67] Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.28]
Present: Sri. MALLIKARJUNA., B.Com., LL.M.,
XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021
O.S.No.8880/2015
Plaintiff/s : D.Umpathy,
S/o V.Doreswamy,
Shop No.10, 55 years,
BDA Complex,
Nandini Layout, Bangalore-560096.
(By Sri.GPAR, Advocate)
-Vs -
Defendant/s : The Secretary and Competent Authority,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumarapark West,
Bangalore
(Deft - Exparte)
Date of institution
of the suit : 19-10-2015
Nature of the suit
[suit on pronote, suit
for declaration and
possession, suit
for injunction] : Permanent Injn
Date of the commencement
of recording of the evidence: 25.11.2017
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 09-04-2021
2 O.S.No.8880/2015
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration 05 05 20
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under:
The plaintiff is the license holder of shop bearing No.10 measuring 500 feet situated at Nandini Layout, BDA complex, Bangalore and on the basis of said license plaintiff has obtained electricity and water connection and he is paying electricity and water bills regularly. He has also paid renewed fee to the B.D.A. Further he has paid repair charges of the suit schedule property a sum of Rs.56,500/-. The plaintiff obtained injunction order against the defendant in O.S.No.4349/2007 not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Inspite of the same defendant issued notice on 9.10.2015 calling the plaintiff to show cause on or before 28.10.2015 why an order of eviction should not be made against the 3 O.S.No.8880/2015 plaintiff. The plaintiff has no other source of income except the business running in the suit schedule property. The issuance of notice by the defendant against this plaintiff is illegal against to law. Therefore present suit is filed against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Accordingly prayed for decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.
3. After service of summons, the defendant remained absent, hence he has been placed exparte the case has been posted for plaintiff's evidence.
4. To prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself got examined as P.W.1 got marked Ex.P-1 to P-3.
5. Heard the arguments of counsel for plaintiff, perused the plaint, evidence and documents on record.
6. The following points arise for my consideration. 4 O.S.No.8880/2015
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of injunction as prayed for ?
2. What order or decree ?
7. My answers to the above points are as under;
Point No.1 : In the affirmative,
Point No.3 : As per final order for
the following;
REASONS
8. Point No.1: It is the case of the plaintiff that, the
plaintiff is the license holder of shop bearing No.10 measuring 500 feet situated at Nandini Layout, BDA complex, Bangalore and on the basis of said license plaintiff has obtained electricity and water connection and he is paying electricity and water bills regularly. He has also paid renewed fee to the B.D.A. Further he has paid repair charges of the suit schedule property a sum of Rs.56,500/-. The plaintiff obtained injunction order against the defendant in O.S.No.4349/2007 not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Inspite of the same defendant issued notice on 9.10.2015 5 O.S.No.8880/2015 calling the plaintiff to show cause on or before 28.10.2015 why an order of eviction should not be made against plaintiff. The plaintiff has no other source of income except the business running in the suit schedule property. The issuance of notice by the defendant against this plaintiff is illegal against to law. Therefore present suit is filed against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Accordingly prayed for decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. Inspite of service of summons defendant remained absent not appear before the court. That itself shows defendant has no case to make out against the defendant. The plaintiff to prove his contention plaintiff himself examined as PW.1. In his affidavit filed in the examination in chief he has reiterated the plaint averments and in support of contention he got marked Ex.P-1 to 3 documents. Ex.P-1 and 2 are the certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.449/2007. The suit relied under Ex.P-1 has been filed by the plaintiff against the Commissioner, 6 O.S.No.8880/2015 Bangalore Development Authority. But the instant suit is filed against Secretary and competent authority, Bangalore Development Authority. The very suit itself appears to be filed against different persons. The Contents of Ex.P-1 and 2 shows that Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant has been restrained permanently from interfere and evicting the plaintiff from the suit schedule property without recourse of law. Ex.P-3 is the copy of the notice stated to be issued by Secretary, B.D.A. Bangalore, wherein he has asked for giving reply to cause notice. That itself does not amounts to interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. So also he cannot be called as eviction notice. On the other hand the plaintiff is required to give sufficient cause not to evict him from the suit schedule property. Thee defendant being statutory body the plaintiff is in occupation of the suit schedule property as a licence holder. Licence cannot create absolute right in favour of the plaintiff to continue the possession. On the other hand he is required to fulfill the terms and conditions of the licence. Therefore the 7 O.S.No.8880/2015 contentions of the plaintiff that defendants are making illegal attempt to dispossess him from the suit schedule property does not holds good. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is not in dispute. The plaintiff has posed apprehension of illegal dispossession by the defendant. Taking into consideration of this apprehension in my view it is just and reasonable to pass an order that defendant shall not dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law which will meet the ends of justice. Therefore plaintiff has proved above point. Accordingly, I have answered it in the affirmative.
9. Point No.2 :- In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
The defendant is hereby restrained from interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property without due process of law.
8 O.S.No.8880/2015Parties to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 8th day of April, 2021) (MALLIKARJUNA) XIV Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
P.W.1 : Sri. D.Umapathy List of documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.P-1 &2 : Certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.449/2007 Ex.P3 : Copy of Notice issued by BDA.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant:
-NIL-
List of documents marked on behalf of the defendant :
-NIL-
XIV Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore.