Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioners are all allottees/tenants/lessees of shop premises and other such establishments in Koramangala BDA shopping complex. They are aggrieved of the impugned notices issued in the month of September, 2018, at Annexure-A series.

2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are the lawful allottees/tenants/lessees in the premises and it is their further contention that although there was a resolution passed by the Board of the Bangalore Development Authority, which is the owner of the property, that first priority before

4. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of Indiranagar BDA Shopping Complex, this Court in Regular First Appeals No.483 of 2016 and connected matters disposed of on 06th May, 2016, had noticed the submissions made on behalf of the occupants/tenants/lessees that since the schedule premises is "public premises" as defined

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:26550 under Section 2(e) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974, no action can be taken to dispossess such occupants/tenants/lessees without following the due process of law. Those appeals were dismissed directing the Bangalore Development Authority not to dispossess the appellants or resume possession of the premises other than in due course of law.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that admittedly action is sought to be taken by the Respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to demolish the existing BDA Complexes since they have become old and may be in dilapidated condition and therefore, a resolution may have been passed by the Board taking into account the difficulties the occupants/tenants/lessees would face if they are to be evicted. Therefore, it appears that a certain package has been formulated to accommodate/give priority to the existing occupants/tenants/lessees. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners had pointed to the said