Disposed

Smt. Mangala W/O Ramesh Madiwalar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2021WP/100796/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a 2018 State notification ending renewal terms for municipal leases. The Court held that since the relevant lease period under a 2009 notification expired before 25.10.2021, examining the 2018 notification was unnecessary as no lease survived. Petitions disposed with liberty to apply for renewal.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed with liberty to petitioners to approach municipalities for renewal/extension of lease; respondents given liberty to take necessary steps.

Smt. Mangala W/O Ramesh Madiwalar Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

W.P. NOS.100796-100797/2018 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MANGALA W/O RAMESH MADIWALAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: IDSMT BLOCK NO.IIIB, SHOP NO.216 GOOGIKATTI, JP ROAD, HAVERI.

¶8

KRISHNASINGH S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR RAJAPUT, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: IDSMT BLOCK NO.IIIB, SHOP NO.216 GOOGIKATTI, JP ROAD, HAVERI.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI.S.S.BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGLAURU-1.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9^TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIH TOWER, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-1.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI.

¶15

¶16

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI, BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶19

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR/NOTIFICATION DATED 18.01.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDETN NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

¶20

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The controversy involved in the present petitions

¶23

revolve around the legality, validity and correctness of the State Government Notifications dated 18.01.2018 issued in relation to premises leased out by municipalities under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners

¶25

and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

¶26

¶27

Though several contentions have been

¶28

urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, material on record indicates that vide circular dated 26.10.2009, the State Government incorporated point No.3 which enabled the respective municipalities to renew the lease for a period of 12 years on certain terms and conditions in respect of the premises, whose lease had expired prior to the date of issuance of said circular. However, subsequently the State Government issued circular dated 18.01.2018 under which the said condition regarding renewal of lease in favour of the existing tenants, whose period of lease expired was deleted and any further lease of premises was directed to be done by way of public auction in terms of Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 R/w Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities Rules (Guidelines of Officers Grant of copies and Miscellaneous Provision) Rules 1966 R/w Karnataka Public (Transparency in Public Procurement) Act, 1999.

¶29

¶30

As stated supra, the legality, validity and correctness of the subsequent notification dated 18.01.2018 is challenged in the present petitions.

¶31

The material on record also discloses that

¶32

the period of lease in respect of premises of the petitioners had expired prior to issuance of the State Government Notification dated 26.10.2009. The said notification also discloses that the period of lease deserves to be renewed for a further period of 12 years subject to enhancement of rent as stipulated in the said notification dated 26.10.2009.

¶33

Undisputedly, the period of 12 years stipulated in the said notification dated 26.10.2009 will expire on 25.10.2021, i.e, less than 45 days from today. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, since the period of 12 years stipulated in notification dated 26.10.2009 is due to expire on 25.10.2021, coupled with the fact that the period of

¶34

¶35

lease of all the existing tenants (petitioners herein) had expired prior to the aforesaid notification dated 26.10.2009, in my considered opinion it is not necessary to examine the legality, validity or correctness of the impugned notification/circular dated 18.01.2018 and all the questions in that regard are kept open. Ordered accordingly.

¶36

Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including seeking renewal of the lease in their favour by submitting necessary representation to the respective municipalities.

¶37

As stated supra, since the period of 12 years stipulated in the notification dated 26.10.2009 has come to an end during the pendency of this petitions, nothing survive further in the petitions and the same are hereby disposed of.

¶38