Quashed

T.Ramkrishna S/O. Thimarayappa Chowkidar v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2022WP/147068/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged eviction notices issued by a respondent after his lease with the Housing Board expired. Court noted the lease had lapsed and relied on precedent ordering the Housing Board to consider a representation for allotment. Eviction notices quashed pending consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned eviction notices quashed; authorized authority directed to consider petitioners representation for sale deed/allotment; possession not to be disturbed pending consideration.

T.Ramkrishna S/O. Thimarayappa Chowkidar Vs the… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.147068/2020 (GM-PP)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

T.RAMKRISHNA S/O THIMARAYAPPA CHOWKIDAR, AGE : 61 YEARS, OCC: RETD. GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O A-3, KHB COLONY, SANTOSH NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580001.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI PRASHANT S.HOSMANI, ADV.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, CAUVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, HUBBALLI DIVISION, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT & INLAND WATER DEPARTMENT, SUB-DIVISION, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT.SHARMILA M.PATIL, ADV. FOR R.1 & 2 SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R.3)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE LETTERS ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2019 BEARING NO.SA.KAA.NI.IM/LO.E/U.VI.HU/C9/2019-2020/896 AND LETTER DATED 14.01.2020 BEARING NO.SA.KA.NI.IM/LO.E/U.VI.H/C-9/2019-2020/1202 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C & D RESPECTIVELY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

: ORDER :

¶20

In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in

¶21

question Annexures-C & D eviction notices issued by respondent No.3.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was working as Group-D employee in Public Works Department. When he was in service, the House bearing No.A-3 in K.H.B.Colony, Santosh Nagar, Hubballi was allotted by respondent No.3 on rental basis as per Annexure-A. The petitioner is residing in the said house from the date of allotment till today. Even after retirement from the services, the petitioner continued to reside in the said house.

¶23

On 25.11.2019, respondent No.3 has issued notice to the petitioner under the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1974 directing him to vacate the

¶24

¶25

premises. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is filed this writ petition

¶26

Sri Prashant S.Hosmani, learned counsel

¶27

appearing for the petitioner has contended that, since respondent No.3 is not the owner of the said property,

¶28

he has no right to issue such impugned notice vide Annexure-C to the petitioner for eviction from the schedule house. He further contended that, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 10.03.2020 vide Annexure-E to respondent Nos.1 & 2 requesting them to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner after collecting prevailing market price of the said house, since in case of the employees who were similarly placed, respondent No.1 has executed

¶29

the sale deed in their favour. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of this Court in W.P.Nos.2177521782/1996 and connected matters disposed off on26.03.1998, W.P.No.13930/1998 disposed of on

¶30

¶31

29.10.1999, W.P.No.77630-634/2013 and connected matters disposed of on 24.04.2013 and W.P.No.76983/2013 disposed of on 05.06.2013.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that, since the petitioner is retired from the service, he has no right to continue in the said house. Therefore, respondent No.3 has rightly issued eviction notice under the said Act and hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.

¶34

It is not in dispute that the 3^rd respondent has allotted the quarters in favour of the petitioner. Even after retirement from the service, the petitioner is allowed to continue in the said quarters. It is also not in dispute that, lease executed in favour of the 3^rd respondent by respondent No.1 had expired as on the date of issuing impugned notice and there was no

¶35

¶36

lease in existence in favour of the 3^rd respondent at that time.

¶37

In the similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.77630-634/2013 and connected matters disposed off on 24.04.2013 has passed the following order.

¶38

“The order referred by the petitioners’ counsel wherein it has been held that in view of expiry of the lease in favour of the second respondent, the second respondent loses its power and ownership over the houses. In the circumstances, it is the Housing Board who has to decide the case of the petitioner by considering the representation for allotment of houses as prayed for. Hence, the Karnataka Housing Board is directed to consider and pass appropriate order on the representation Annexure-B within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, the impugned notices issued by the second respondent are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. Till consideration of representation of the petitioners, the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed.”

¶39

¶40

9. In view of the above, the impugned notices

¶41

vide Annexures-C & D issued by the 3rd respondent is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation dated 10.03.2020 submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-E in accordance with law. Till consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed.

¶42

With these observations, the writ petition is

¶43

disposed off.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

T.Ramkrishna S/O. Thimarayappa Chowkidar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ramkrishna S/O. Thimarayappa Chowkidar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ammanna S/O Awadhoot Odeyar Vs Siddappa S/O Basappa Ainapur

Belgaum District Hand Ball Association (R) Vs the Hand Ball Federation of India

Prashant S/O. Nageshrao Kulkarni Vs the Union of India

Shri B Shankrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sayeda Ahmadi Sahabjadi Vs Sayed Hussain Shah S/O Sayed Usman Shah

Sri. Nagaraj S/O Shankrappa Vs Smt. Sanna Hallamma