Allowed

Indiranagar Club v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2022WP/3140/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to quash a BBMP order evicting the petitioner club from a leased property. The court held that eviction under the Karnataka Public Premises Act was not maintainable as the lease was not validly terminated in a manner known to law despite alleged condition violations.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.12.2015 is quashed, with liberty reserved to the BBMP to take appropriate action under the lease agreement.

Indiranagar Club Vs the Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

W.P.NO.3140/2016 (LB BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

INDIRANAGAR CLUB NO.529/2, & 529/3, HAL 2^ND STAGE, HOYSALA NAGAR, WARD NO.80, BANGALORE-560 008 REP BY ITS SECRETARY M. NAGENDRA

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.L.GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BBMP HEAD OFFICE HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 002.

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) ANNEXE BUILDING 2^ND FLOOR BBMP OFFICE PREMISES N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE-560 002

¶13

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST) (APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY) MAYO HALL, M.G. ROAD, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-01

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.K.N.PUTTEGOWDA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

¶17

¶18

PROCEEDINGS CULMINATING IN THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2015 PASSED BY THE BBMP (ANNEX-H)

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

On the request of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 executed the lease deed dated 06.03.1981 leasing the scheduled property measuring 330 x 300 feet in favour of the petitioner for a period of 50 years with effect from 06.03.1981. One of the condition imposed in the lease deed was that the petitioner shall use the land granted for the purpose of literary, sports, cultural activities etc., and the lease deed further provided that in the event of violation of any of the conditions contained in the lease agreement, the lease shall be deemed to have been terminated.

¶22

When things stood thus, Respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 07.10.2015 under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1974, (for short 'Act') calling upon the petitioner-Club as to why it should not be evicted from the schedule property for having violated the conditions of lease. The petitioner suitably replied to the said show cause notice.

¶23

¶24

Respondent No.3, by an order dated 17.12.2015 directed the petitioner to vacate the schedule property within 45 days from the date of its order. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is one without authority of law since the provisions of the said Act cannot be made applicable for having violated the conditions of the lease deed during the subsistence of the lease period. He further submitted that the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions of the lease deed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is not sustainable by law.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has violated the conditions of the lease deed by using the schedule property for the purpose of Swimming, Card Room, Recreation Club and Bar and Restaurant. He submits that the grant made in favour of the petitioner is deemed to have been terminated and as such, the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the schedule property. Hence, he submits that

¶27

¶28

the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is in accordance with the provisions contained under the said Act. He further submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 10 of the said Act.

¶29

I have examined the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted with the schedule property on lease by respondent No.2 for a period of 50 years subject to certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions imposed was that the schedule property is required to be utilised for the purpose of promoting sports, arrange literary and cultural activities, conduct Exhibitions etc., Respondent No.3 has issued a notice on 07.10.2015 to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner as to why it should not be evicted from the schedule property for having violated

¶31

the terms of lease. Though the activities conducted by the petitioner - Club are lawful and licensed by various statutory Authorities including the respondents, which is not disputed by the respondent, the impugned order passed by the 3^rd

¶32

¶33

respondent on the premise that the petitioner has violated the conditions of the grant is without any substance.

¶34

Though the lease deed contains a clause that in the event of violation of any of the conditions laid down in the agreement, the lease deed is deemed to have been terminated, however, it cannot be implied or construed that the agreement is deemed to have been terminated unless it is terminated in a manner known to law.

¶35

In the absence of termination of the agreement in a manner known to law, the possession of the petitioner over the schedule property cannot be said to be unauthorized and the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 are not applicable. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of efficacious alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 10 of the Act is not acceptable. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶38

¶39

(ii) The impugned order dated 17.12.2015 passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-H is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to respondent-BBMP to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law, if the petitioner has violated any conditions contained in the agreement.

¶40

All contentions are left open.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

Indiranagar Club v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indiranagar Club v. the Commissioner

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

Smt Leela Vs State by

K Srinivasan Vs K Manjula Munibachappa

Jayalakshmamma Vs Rathnamma

Sri K B Eshwaraprasad Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Mangala Builders Private Ltd. Vs Mangalore City Corporation

Sri G Venkatesh Vs the Commissioner