Dismissed

Suresh S/O Shivappa Pisennavar v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2024WP/104637/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash a notice calling for vacating bus stand premises and seek direction to permit continuation of refreshment business. Court upheld notice based on lease clause allowing possession handover for reconstruction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; license clause upheld; petitioner entitled to refund and tender opportunity.

Suresh S/O Shivappa Pisennavar Vs the Divisional… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6627 WP No. 104637 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.104637/2022(GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SURESH S/O. SHIVAPPA PISENNAVAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOTEL BUSINESS, R/O: WARD NO.4, NEAR BUS STAND, BANAHATTI, TQ: RABAKAVI BANAHATTI DIST: BAGAKOT, PIN: 587101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH - WEST KARNATAKA ROAD, TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT, PIN: 587 101.

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NORTH - WEST KARANATAKA ROAD, TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALI, PIN: 580 030.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 06/10/2022 IN NO. VAKARASA/BAVI/SUM/VA/2920/22 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C. TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE TO RUN HIS REFRESHMENT HOTEL BUSINESS AS PER TERMS OF LICENSE AND AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6627 WP No. 104637 of 2022

¶20

DATED 07/02/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B DATED 16/02/2022 IN NWKT:BGK:TR:COM:411:22 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 06.10.2022, produced as per Annexure-C and to issue direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to run his refreshment business in terms of license produced as per Annexure-A and B.

¶24

Heard learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj P. Mudhol, for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Prashant S. Hosamani, for respondents.

¶25

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is a licensee, who is running refreshment business in the bus stand at Banhatti and the lease is for a period of five years i.e. from 07.02.2022 to 06.02.2027. In the mean time, respondent No.1 has issued a notice as per Annexure-C calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises, since it intents to demolish the bus stand.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6627 WP No. 104637 of 2022

¶27

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when lease is for a period of five years, he could not have been asked to vacate the premises before expiry of the said period. Even as per the terms of lease agreement, the dispute resolution clause is provided under clause 9 of the lease and same is not followed.

¶28

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner since the lease period is not over, the petitioner is to be permitted to continue to run his refreshment business in the very same building or in the alternative to shift his business to the new premises where the new bus stand is constructed. Accordingly, he prays for passing appropriate orders.

¶29

Per contra, it is the contention of the respondents

¶30

that since old bus stand was required to be demolished and a new bus stand is be constructed by providing all amenities for the passengers, notice as per Annexure-C was issued asking the petitioner to vacate the premises. He submitted that the new bus stand is already constructed and the old one is to be demolished to provide parking area.

¶31

Learned counsel submits that as per clause 38 of Annexure-A, the petitioner had agreed to handover the

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6627 WP No. 104637 of 2022

¶33

possession of the premises whenever the licensor intents to reconstruct or renovate the premises.

¶34

On perusal of the materials on record it is clear that the respondent as licensor, leased the Hotel premises to run the refreshment business by the petitioner with effect from 07.02.2022 for a period of five years i.e till. 06.02.2027. In the mean time, the respondent appears to have taken the decision to demolish the old bus stand and to construct the new one.

¶35

It is the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that a new bus stand is already constructed and the old building where the petitioner is running the refreshment business is required to be demolished for providing parking area. This fact is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, it is his submission that when the new bus stand is constructed, the petitioner may be provided an accommodation to run his refreshment business in the new building. But it is brought to the notice of the Court that the area provided for refreshment business in the new building is much more and several facilities are provided for both licensee as well as for the customers. Under such circumstances, petitioner cannot insist the

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6627 WP No. 104637 of 2022

¶37

respondents to provide the new premises on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in Annexure-A.

¶38

It is relevant to refer to clause 38 of Annexure-A where the petitioner as licensee undertook to hand over the possession of the licensed premises within 7 days after receiving the notice from the licensor, in the event, the licensor intents to reconstruct or renovate the licensed premises. Of course, this clause refers to destruction or damages caused to the premises by natural calamities or civil war or riot, civil disturbances etc. But in the present case, it is stated that since the building was old one and was unfit for users, a decision was taken to demolish the building. Therefore, I do find considerable force in the contentions take by the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is entitled for refund of the earnest amount and any other benefits for which he is entitled to under the agreement and further he is also entitled to participate in the tender that may be called for running refreshment business in the new bus stand premises. With these observations, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6627 WP No. 104637 of 2022

¶41

Learned counsel for respondents undertook not to

¶42

evict the petitioner from the petition premises for a period of 15

¶43

days from today.

¶44

SD/JUDGE

¶45

AC/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Suresh S/O Shivappa Pisennavar v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh S/O Shivappa Pisennavar v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Mohan S/O. Lakshaman Rao Deshpande Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Laxmi Mahila Multi-Purpose Co-Operative Sangha Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Gopal S/O Ramappa Hugar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Hiremath Paints Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Yallappa S/O Marigoneppa @ Murigeshappa Vs Marigoneppa @ Murigeshappa S/O Sanna

M/S Kolvekar Logistics Vs the Joint Commissioner of Commercial