Dismissed

Sri. Janardhan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024WA/1040/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal by a canteen proprietor challenging a Single Judge order requiring him to quit expired government premises. The Division Bench found no tenable ground to interfere, noted an interim stay in the appellate MA proceedings under the eviction law, and dismissed the writ appeal.

What did the court decide?

None granted; appeal dismissed, impugned order to take effect after disposal of MA 14/2024.

Sri. Janardhan Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42533-DB WA No. 1040 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1040 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. JANARDHAN S/O LATE GANAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS PROPRIETOR: DC CANTEEN D.C.OFFICE COMPOUND KANDAYA BHAVANA BANGALORE-560 009

¶10

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY G. VASUDEVAN S/O GANAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D.C.OFFICE COMPOUND KANDAYA BHAVANA BANGALORE-560 009

¶12

(BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTEMNT M.S.BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:42533-DB WA No. 1040 of 2023

¶19

THASHILDAR NORTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVANA BENGALURU-560 009

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDER DIRECTING TO QUIT PREMISES AND DIRECTION TO USE POLICE FORCE TO REMOVE PHYSICALLY FROM THE PREMISES AND FURTHER TAKING CONTEMPT ACTION AS ORDERED IN WP 15835/2023 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 27/07/2023.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶24

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶26

and

¶27

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶30

Heard Sri Rameshchandra, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned AGA for respondents and perused the Writ Appeal papers.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42533-DB WA No. 1040 of 2023

¶32

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 27.07.2023 passed in WP No.15835/2023 by the

¶33

learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the intimation letter dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure-A) wherein the appellant is directed to vacate the premises in question and to hand over the same to the Tahsildar.

¶34

The licence period in respect of the premises in question granted to the petitioner-appellant expired on 5.5.2022. Notices were issued on 25.12.2022 and subsequently, on consideration of representation by the petitioner-appellant, final notice was issued on 11.07.2023 asking the petitioner/appellant to vacate the premises.

¶35

Learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the said notice with observation as made at paragraph-5 of the impugned order which reads as follows:

¶36

"5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Respondents and therefore,

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42533-DB WA No. 1040 of 2023

¶38

declines indulgence. Where certain rights are given in respect of immovable property for a particular period, the right to seek extension cannot be assumed in the absence of a text in the arrangement. The Court cannot read something that is not there in the arrangement namely the Joint Memo as rightly contended by learned AGA. In the absence of right and more particularly justiceable right, the Petition is misconceived, to say the least."

¶39

5. Learned Single Judge granted three months

¶40

time for quitting the premises subject to making usual payments and clearing all arrears. Further observed that, if the appellant-petitioner does not quit, the respondents

¶41

can use Police force to remove him physically from the premises.

¶42

No tenable ground is made out to interfere with

¶43

the impugned order. A person who is granted licence in respect of a Government premises, on expiry of the licence period, cannot continue to occupy the premises. Moreover, the time was further extended on the joint

¶44

memo filed by the petitioner-appellant as well as respondents in Writ Petition No.16622/2006 disposed of

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42533-DB WA No. 1040 of 2023

¶46

on 10.4.2008. The parties are bound by the terms of the said joint memo.

¶47

In the meanwhile, the petitioner-appellant was

¶48

issued an endorsement dated 11.07.2023 rejecting his request for extension of time and also asking him to immediately vacate the premises in question. RespondentTahsildar initiated proceedings under Section 4(c) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short 1974 Act) in proceedings No.PPA/CR/01/2023-24 and the competent authority, by order dated 29.07.2024 allowed the petition and directed the petitioner-appellant to handover vacant possession of the premises in question and in case of failure to comply with order within 45 days, to take possession of the premises. Challenging the said order, the petitionerappellant has filed MA 14/2024 before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru under Section 10 of 1974 Act. The learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru by order dated 22.08.2024 has passed an interim order staying the operation and execution of

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:42533-DB WA No. 1040 of 2023

¶51

the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the competent authority under 1974 Act.

¶52

Since there is an interim order dated 22.08.2024 in MA No.14/2024 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, impugned order in this appeal could be given effect to after disposal of said MA. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge shall take note of the order dated 27.07.2023 in Writ Petition No.15835/2023 and order dated 10.04.2008 in Writ Petition No.16622/2006 and dispose of the MA

¶53

No.14/2024 expeditiously.

¶54

9. The Writ Appeal stands dismissed.

¶55

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶58

SK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri. Janardhan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Janardhan v. 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

The Superintendent of Police Vs Mr Devaraj G

Miss Veena Kumari S Vs Karnataka Power Transmission

Karnataka State Nursing Council Vs Hpr Manipal School of Nursing

Smt. Puttabasamma Vs Sri.B. Raju

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri R C Kemparaju

Sri H D Gurumurthy Vs the Inspector General of Police