Dismissed

Sri Panduranga Avadhani v. the Life Insurance Corporation of India

Karnataka HC23 May 2023WP/42711/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed writ petition challenging eviction order and damages. Court held lease between individual and LIC fell under Public Premises Act. Tenancy terminated per agreement, making petitioner unauthorized occupant thereafter. References to Supreme Court precedent distinguished.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. Eviction order and damages upheld.

Sri Panduranga Avadhani Vs the Life… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 42711 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 42711 OF 2018 (GM-PP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. PANDURANGA AVADHANI, (SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LRs

¶8

SRI. VARUN, S/O VASUDEVA AVADHANI, MINOR, REP. BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND FATHER SRI. VASUDEVA AVADHANI, PARTNER OF M/s. KANARA MEDICALS, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

[BY DR. S. ARUMUGHAM, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AJJARKAD, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶13

THE ESTATE OFFICER, (UNDER ACT 40/1971) LIC OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN BHAGYA, SYEDABAD, HYDERABAD - 500 063.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

[BY SRI. SHIVAYOGI B. HALLUR, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 11.07.2018 MADE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3/2014 BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT UDUPI AND THE ORDER ANNEXURE-B DATED 03.09.2014 MADE IN CASE NO.1/2013 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN AND ETC.,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 42711 of 2018

¶19

THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.04.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Challenging order dated 11.07.2018 passed by Prl. District Judge, Udupi in Misc. Appeal no.3/2014 (Annexure-A) and order dated 03.09.2014 passed by respondent no.2 in Case no.1/2013 (Annexure-B), this writ petition is filed.

¶22

Dr. S Arumugham, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Impugned orders are challenged on two grounds namely - that respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ' LIC ' for short) came into existence in 1956 by consolidation of various private insurance companies including petitioner's erstwhile landlord Kanara Mutual Assurance Co. Ltd., Udupi. As jural relationship of landlord and tenant existed only between Kanara Mutual Assurance Co. Ltd., and M/s Kanara Medicals, initiation of proceedings by LIC against petitioner was misconceived and illegal.

¶23

It is also contended that provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'PP Act' for short) which came into effect from 01.03.1971, cannot be applied to premises tenanted even prior to LIC coming into existence, by seeking to

¶24

¶25

WP No. 42711 of 2018

¶26

rely upon ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

¶27

Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.¹ .

¶28

Elaborating said contentions, it was submitted that

¶29

petitioner was son of late Padmanabha Avadhani, one of partners of M/s Kanara Medicals, Udupi - a registered partnership Firm, initially constituted of partners viz., Dr. K Mohandas Pai, Dr. Ramdas Pai, Vittaldasji Pai and B.Lakshminarayana Ballal. Said partnership was housed in property bearing door no.13-3-15, Court Road, Udupi-576 101. Thereafter two of partners retired by transferring their asssets and liabilities in favour of other partners. Later on, they were replaced by their wives in partnership. During year 1978, it was reconstituted and petitioner - Panduranga Avadhani was made partner. On 01.11.1985, a release deed was executed by Mrs.Leela M Pai and Mrs.Vasanthi R Pai, in favour of petitioner and all assets and liabilities of Firm stood transferred in favour of petitioner. It was claimed that on same day, a new deed of partnership was constituted by Padmanabha with his son - Panduranga. It was submitted that LIC had all through out recognized said partnership firm as its tenant and was receiving rent paid by it. On 08.09.2012, petitioner received notice of

¶30

1 (2014) 4 SCC 657

¶31

¶32

WP No. 42711 of 2018

¶33

termination of tenancy with effect from 30.09.2012, on ground that part of land on which premises was constructed, was acquired for road widening and portion of building was demolished. Petitioner was called upon to deliver vacant possession of premises.

¶34

Thereafter, LIC filed petition under Sections 5 and 7 of PP Act on 17.12.2012. After receipt of notice of said proceedings on 07.01.2013, petitioner filed objections on 18.02.2013. Thereafter, LIC filed rejoinder on 15.03.2013.

¶35

Based on pleadings, respondent no.2 framed ten issues and two addl. issues at behest of petitioner. It was submitted that without providing adequate opportunity or properly considering evidence, respondent no.2 passed impugned order at Annexure-B, holding petitioner as unauthorized occupant of premises and liable to pay damages at rate of Rs.8,260/- p.m. with effect from 01.10.2012 (i.e., Rs.1,89,980/- from 01.10.2012 to 31.08.2014) with simple interest at 8% per annum, apart from electricity and water charges and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

¶36

Aggrieved by said order, petitioner preferred appeal before Principal District Judge, Udupi, on several substantial contentions. However, without proper appreciation, impugned

¶37

¶38

WP No. 42711 of 2018

¶39

order at Annexure-A was passed dismissing appeal. Questioning said orders, writ petition was filed.

¶40

It was submitted that on 05.09.1939, Kanara Mutual Assurance Company was incorporated. Said company was owning Kanara Mutual Building, at Udupi. M/s Kanara Medicals - partnership firm was one of tenants of said building during year 1942. It was submitted that said tenancy was even prior to incorporation of LIC in year 1956. Therefore, tenancy was governed by Mysore Tenancy Act, 1939, until Bombay Tenancy Act 1961 came into force. Hence, Section 2(e) of PP Act was not applicable and impugned orders were illegal and liable to be quashed.

¶41

It was submitted that when LIC acknowledged firm as its tenant by issuing receipts in name of M/s Kanara Medicals, description in rental agreement executed on 20.04.2006 as proprietorship was only with intention to evict petitioner by resorting to PP Act. It was contended that M/s Kanara Medicals was partnership firm from 16.11.2012 and therefore, as there was no jural relationship between petitioner, an individual and LIC, impugned orders were unsustainable.

¶42

Referring to objects of PP Act, it was submitted that premises held by LIC would not fall within definition of 'public

¶43

¶44

WP No. 42711 of 2018

¶45

premises' under Section 2(e) of PP Act as said enactment. It was submitted that said enactment did not govern entire relationship between landlord and tenant, but was confined only to eviction of unauthorized occupant. Therefore, authorities under said Act, were not competent to decide jural relationship, which in instant case was required to be adjudicated. It was submitted that as there was no proper determination of tenancy, impugned orders called for interference.

¶46

On other hand, Sri Shivayogi B. Hallur, learned counsel for respondents at outset pointed to admission of jural relationship by referring to reply notice of petitioner produced at Annexure-Z and same was specifically highlighted in rejoinder filed by LIC and therefore there was no merit in challenge on ground of jural relationship. It was also submitted that lease agreement dated 06.03.2009 (referred to as Ex.R3 in Annexure-B) executed between petitioner individually with LIC contained specific clause mandating petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of premises after expiry of period of lease i.e., on 15.04.2012. Therefore, with effect from 16.04.2012, petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of premises. That apart, LIC had got issued notice of termination

¶47

¶48

WP No. 42711 of 2018

¶49

of tenancy produced as Annexure-J dated 08.09.2012, specifically terminating lease agreement with effect from 30.09.2012. Hence, it was submitted that there was no merit in writ petition and sought for its dismissal.

¶50

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶51

Admittedly, writ petition is against concurrent finding about jural relationship and finding about petitioner being in unauthorized occupation of premises as well as about applicability of provisions of PP Act.

¶52

Insofar as first contention regarding jural relationship between petitioner and respondent no.1, perusal of Ex.P.2 - termination notice produced as Annexure-J herein, there is clear admission about petitioner being tenant of LIC. Perusal of copy of lease agreement dated 06.03.2009 (produced by learned counsel for LIC along with memo dated 10.04.2023 and referred to as Ex.R3 in order at Annexure-B) would reveal that said lease agreement was executed between petitioner individually and LIC. As per its terms, lease commenced from 16.04.2009 and expired on 15.04.2012, with condition mandating petitioner to deliver vacant possession.

¶53

¶54

WP No. 42711 of 2018

¶55

Even in rejoinder statement filed by petitioner herein, there is clear admission that petitioner was proprietor from 01.01.1985 to 16.11.2012 i.e. upto date of execution of partnership deed between petitioner and his two sons as per Annexure-U. Further before respondent no.2, it was established by LIC that there was valid determination of tenancy with effect from 30.09.2012, by issuing termination notice produced at Annexure-J duly received by petitioner on 11.09.2012, petitioner would be in unauthorized occupation of premises.

¶56

In view of above mentioned agreement, there cannot be dispute about premises belonging to LIC, which would indisputably fall within definition of 'public premises' defined under Section 2(e) of PP Act. Therefore, there is sufficient justification for finding regarding jural relationship as well as about unauthorised occupant. Since, there was no renewal of lease agreement and express termination, petitioner cannot be permitted to rely upon partnership which came into existence under Annexure-U on 16.11.2012 to contend that partnership firm was tenant.

¶57

Insofar as contention based on ratio in Suhas Pophale 's case (supra), it is seen that tenancy under consideration therein was one which had come into existence

¶58

¶59

WP No. 42711 of 2018

¶60

prior to formation of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Admittedly, in present case, written lease agreement between parties was one executed on 06.03.2009 for period of three years from 16.04.2009. Therefore, by virtue of provisions of PP Act, premises would be 'public premises' and as stated above said agreement was not renewed and expressly terminated w.e.f. 30.09.2012 by issuing notice dated 08.09.2012. Since LIC was incorporated in year 1956 and even merger of M/s Kanara Mutual Assurance Co. into LIC was much prior to execution of lease agreement at Annexure-R.1, petitioner cannot avail any assistance from ratio in Suhas Pophale 's case (supra).

¶61

Moreover, High Court of Uttaranchal in Prem Chand v. Life Insurance Corporation of India² , and Amar Nath Seth v. Union of India³ , have negatived similar challenge by referring to Suhas Pophale 's case (supra). Hence, none of petitioner's contentions are meritorious.

¶62

Consequently, Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

psg*

¶65

2 2017 SCC OnLine Utt 1561

¶66

3 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 1361

Sri Panduranga Avadhani v. the Life Insurance Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Panduranga Avadhani v. the Life Insurance Corporation of India

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

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri Seethegowda

Fouress Engineering (India) Limited Vs Sri. B. Puttaiah

Umesha Vs General Manager (Operation)

State Bank of India Vs M/S. Samrat Ashok Exports Ltd.

M/S D'Ranflex and Hobal Workers Vs the Addl Labour Commissioner

M/S Bvg India Limited Vs Union of India