Allowed

Sri H K Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2022WP/10926/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order corrects a previous writ disposal. The High Court ordered the municipal corporation to refund Rs.1,75,000 to petitioner No.1 interest from the petition date. On amendment, it held interest must run from the 2012 deposit date and increased the refund to Rs.3,50,000 covering two shops.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 is directed to refund Rs.3,50,000 to petitioner No.1 along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of deposit.

Sri H K Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10926/2017 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. H.K. MANJUNATH S/O KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'HARSHITHA NILAYA', BELAVANAHALLI, BEHIND GANESHA SAW MILL ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶8

SRI. JAHEER AHMED S/O LATE SHEIKH BUDEN SAB, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLANDOORU ROAD, OPP. SHANKAR GARAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶9

SRI. NAZEER AHMED S/O LATE SHEIKH BUDEN SAB, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DONIKHANA, BELUR ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,

¶14

¶15

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMGALURU-577101.

¶18

SRI. K.M.DILIP S/O K.S.MULLAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NEAR SRI LEKHA THEATRE, SOMESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, ARAVINDA NAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.

¶19

SRI. R. KUMAR S/O LATE RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A SANTHE MARKET ROAD, TAMIL COLONY (A.K.COLONY) CHIKKAMGALURU-577101.

¶20

LIFELINE SEEDS LTD. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MARKET ROAD, CHIKKAMGALURU-577101.

¶21

SRI ANWAR AHMED, S/O SHEIK BUDEN SAB, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, MARKET ROAD, CHIKKAMGALURU-577101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶24

SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3;

¶25

¶26

SRI. L. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BEARING NO.DUDC(1)/CR/491/2015-16 VIDE ANNEXUREA AND CONSEQUENTLY, TO QUASH THE AUCTION NOTICE BEARING NO.CMC/CKM/KAM.SHA/CR/11/2015-16 DATED 22.12.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND THE AUCTION RESULTS VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.1, OLD SHOP NO.21 (NEW SHOP NO.45), AND OLD SHOP NO.22 (NEW SHOP NO.46), AND PETITIONER NO.2 OLD SHOP NO.1 (NEW SHOP NO.18) AND PETITIONER NO.3, OLD SHOP NO.19 (NEW SHOP NO.43) AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioners have challenged the order bearing No.DUDC(1)/SCR/491/2015-16 dated 30.11.2016 passed by the respondent No.3 and consequently, to quash the auction notice bearing No.CMC/CKM/KAM.SHA/CR/11/ 2015-16 dated 22.12.2016 and the results of the auction issued by the respondent No.2 in respect of new shop Nos.45, 46, 18 and 43. The petitioners have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.3 to continue their tenancy as per the circular of the respondent No.1 dated 26.10.2009.

¶31

¶32

The petitioner No.1 was occupying two shops

¶33

bearing Nos.21 and 22 while the petitioner No.2 was occupying shop No.1 and petitioner No.3 was occupying shop No.19 in the commercial complex belonging to the respondent No.2. When the lease was set for renewal in the year 2012, the respondent No.2 issued notice calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as the refundable deposit and the rent stood revised to Rs.2,500/- per month. All the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- consequent to which the respondent No.2 executed lease agreements which was to be in force for a period of 12 years.

¶34

Later the respondent No.2 at a meeting held on 01.09.2012, decided that the complex would be demolished for the purpose of road widening and a new building would be constructed by raising Rs.1,25,000/from each of the 48 tenants. It was promised to the petitioners that after construction of the building the petitioners would be accommodated in the new complex.

¶35

¶36

Based on the resolution dated 01.09.2012 and the promise made by the respondent No.2, the petitioners vacated the shops in September-2012 and paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/to enable the construction of the new complex. When the petitioners were legitimately expecting to get back their shops after redevelopment, they received a notice dated 09.01.2017 from the respondent No.2 informing them to participate in the public auction of the shops on 16.01.2017. The petitioners claimed that this was an unconscionable withdrawal of the promise by the respondent No.2. It was stated that the respondent No.2 reneged on its promise after almost three years, based on an instruction by the respondent No.3 to dispose of the leasehold rights by public auction only. Though the petitioners submitted their objections to the intended auction, the respondent No.2 proceeded with the auction on 16.01.2017 and notified the successful bidders. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

¶37

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶39

that the respondent No.2 could not have resiled from the promise made to the petitioners and the respondent No.2 is liable to be pinned down to its promise. He further submitted that the petitioners have given up their source of livelihood and the respondents are bound to accommodate the petitioners in the new commercial complex having regard to the fact that the petitioners were entitled to remain in possession for a period of 12 years from the year 2012 when lease agreements were executed in their favour.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner No.1 is now willing to accept a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- along with a reasonable rate of interest. Insofar as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.2 has now offered to allot shop Nos.49 and 50 and that the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were willing to accept the same.

¶41

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the respondent No.2 was bound to follow the directions of the respondent No.3 which were issued in the light of Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 as well as the circular issued by the State Government directing all municipalities to lease out the property belonging to it by way of public auction only. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.2 is willing to refund Rs.1,75,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and also allot shop Nos.49 and 50 to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 subject to they paying the rent which is paid by the other tenants.

¶43

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are willing to take the shop Nos.49 and 50 on rent at the rate of Rs.6,084/per month, which is paid by the other tenants.

¶44

In view of the aforesaid submission, having

¶45

regard to the fact that the respondent No.2 has exposed the petitioner No.1 to loss of business and opportunity, it

¶46

¶47

is appropriate that a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- paid by the petitioner No.1 is ordered to be refunded along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition.

¶48

9. Respondent No.2 shall allot shop NOs.49 and

¶49

50 to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 on a monthly rent of Rs.6,084/- for a similar period as is given for the other tenants with escalation for every three years at the rate of 10% on the last paid rent. Hence, the following;

¶50

ORDER

¶51

This writ petition is allowed-in-part .

¶52

The respondent No.2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to petitioner No.1 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this writ petition till the date of payment.

¶53

Respondent No.2 is directed to allot shop

¶54

Nos.49 and 50 at the Commercial Complex constructed by the respondent No.2 at

¶55

¶56

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road, Chikkamagaluru on a monthly rent of Rs.6,084/- per month each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 respectively for a period similar as is given for other tenants. The rent payable by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall be escalated @10% on the last paid rent for every three years. This shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶57

It is needless to mention that the amount deposited

¶58

by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 with the respondent No.2 shall be retained as security deposit which shall be refunded at the time of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 vacating the premises.

Sd/JUDGE

NR/-

W.P No.10926/2017

RNJ:

19.06.2023

ORDER

I.A.No.1/2023 is filed for correction of order dated

¶67

14.06.2022 passed in the present writ petition.

¶68

It is stated that petitioner No.1 had deposited

¶69

Rs.50,000/- on 07.07.2012 and a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 18.10.2012 for each shop in anticipation of allotment of shops. However, respondent No.2 failed to allot the shops and petitioner No.1 was therefore compelled to approach this Court in the present writ petition. This Court allowed the petition and directed the respondent No.2 to refund Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of writ petition till the date of realisation. It is hence claimed that petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest from the date of deposit till payment.

¶70

This application is opposed by respondent No.2 who contends that petitioner No.1 did not approach this Court from the year 2012 till year 2017 and in the year 2017, when the present writ petition was filed, petitioner No.1

¶71

¶72

challenged the auction of the shops in question and therefore, petitioner No.1 was not willing to accept the shop that were offered to him and therefore, he is not entitled for interest from the date of deposit.

¶73

Learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 also submits that a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was paid to each of the shops and this Court while directing refund had directed respondent No.2 only to refund a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-. He therefore, prays that the order dated 14.06.2022 be accordingly, corrected granting a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to petitioner No.1 and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accepting the deposit till the date of payment.

¶74

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶75

Petitioner No.1 had deposited a sum of Rs.1,75,000/per shop and in all had deposited a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. Respondent No.1, who was required to allot the shops

¶76

¶77

directed petitioner No.1 to participate in the public auction. Therefore, respondent No.2 was bound in law to refund the money that it retained from the year 2012 till the year 2017. Since even during the course of this writ petition, respondent No.2 neither refunded the money nor offered any shops to petitioner No.1, but at the time of final disposal of the writ petition, a faint offer was made by respondent No.2 to allot shops, which was not accepted by petitioner No.1. In that view of the matter, I.A.No.1/2023 deserves to be allowed and hence allowed. The respondent No.2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to petitioner No.1 in respect of shop Nos.21 and 22 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.

¶78

This order shall be read in-conjunction with the order dated 14.06.2022.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

RSP

Sri H K Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H K Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S F M Ummer Vs the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Kashif Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri v Chandrashekar Vs the Commissioner

Mr Rathnakar Kamath Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

Sree Shankarmutt Agrahara Vs the Assistant Commissioner