Allowed

Oodadu Technology Private Limited v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2024WP/34831/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought to break the seal imposed on premises by the BBMP and permit business operations. The Court directed the Assistant Revenue Officer to break the seal upon deposit of rent, and subsequently granted relief to the second petitioner whose premises were omitted in the earlier order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to break the seal of the petitioners' premises subject to deposit of rent at Rs.25,000 and Rs.50,000 respectively; subsequently extended this relief to the second petiti

Oodadu Technology Private Limited Vs the Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:53047 WP No. 34831 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 34831 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

OODADU TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 9/3, B-704 VAISHANAVI NAKSHATRA

¶9

TUMKRU ROAD, YESHWANTPUR BENGALURU 560 022 RERPESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SANDEEP LAXMAN KULKARNI

¶10

URBAN WAVE REALITY REGISTERED OFFICE AT PRINCE ARCADE 1083 12TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR

¶11

BENGALURU 560 008

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶14

MR. PARESH C CHOWDAPPA

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. VISHNU SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR

¶17

SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE

¶20

BANGALORE 560 001

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:53047 WP No. 34831 of 2024

¶23

ASISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER DOMLUR DIVISION 12TH FLOOR PU BUILDING M G RAOD BANGALORE 560 001

¶24

SRI N SURESH KRISHNAMURTHY S/O N S KRISHNAMURTHY AGED MAJOR 65, RESIDING ATNO. 1083 PRINCE ARCADE, 5TH CROSS 12TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE INDIRA NAGAR BANGALORE 560 038

¶25

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESWARA N R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO BREAK THE LOCK AND RE-OPEN THE PREMISES OF THE PETITIONERS AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CARRY ON BUSINESS IN THE SCHEDULE PREMISES BY CONSIDERING THE CONSIDER 16.12.2024 AND 16.12.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE A AND B.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:53047 WP No. 34831 of 2024

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision to

¶31

seal the corresponding premises in the property bearing No.1083, Prince Arcade, 5^th Cross, 12^th Main, HAL, 2^nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru [ the subject property ]. The petitioners have filed their representations as against the decision to seal the subject property requesting for reopening. The petitioners have filed this petition because such application has not been considered. The details of the subject properties in the occupation of the petitioners are as follows:

¶32

800 sq ft of office space in the second floor of the schedule property.

¶33

1680 sq ft of office space in the third floor of the schedule property.

¶34

Sri. N. R. Jagadeeswara, a learned standing

¶35

counsel for the first and second respondents, is called upon to accept notice and the petition stands disposed of by consent in the light of the orders of

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:53047 WP No. 34831 of 2024

¶38

this Court on 19.11.2024 in W.P.No.30801/2024. This Court, in similar circumstances, has observed that the jurisdictional Officer, given the provisions of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [Property Tax Assessment, Recovery and Management] Rules, 2024 [for short, ' the 2024 Rules' ], could not have sealed the premises unless it was found to be necessary in terms of Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules.

¶39

It is salient that this proposition would apply in the present case and that the petitioners would also be entitled for similar relief. Sri. N. R. Jagadeeswara in this regard, points out that the first petitioner is in possession of the third floor of the building and the occupation would be more than 2,400 Sq. Ft. Indeed, the first petitioner cannot be treated on par with the second petitioner or the other petitioners in W.P.No.30801/2024, given the extent of the built up area that this petitioner claims. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:53047 WP No. 34831 of 2024

¶42

ORDER

¶43

a. The petition is allowed directing the second respondent - the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP - to break open the seal of the petitioners' premises subject to the petitioners depositing for their respective premises, rent at the rate of Rs.25,000/and Rs.50,000/respectively commencing from 1^st December 2024.

¶44

b. The petitioners will be at liberty to deposit the amount as aforesaid after receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶45

c. The petitioners shall also file an affidavit with the second respondent undertaking that they will continue to pay such rents until there is an order

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:53047 WP No. 34831 of 2024

¶48

or otherwise under Rule 9 of the 2024

¶49

Rules but after due opportunity.

¶50

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶51

RB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:53047 WP No. 34831 of 2024

¶54

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶55

[OODADU TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. THE COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS]

¶56

07.03.2025

¶57

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶58

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶59

ORAL ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2025

¶60

The petitioners have filed this application for correction of the order dated 20.12.2024. In support of the application, and the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that.

¶61

i. The petitioners are in possession of different premises in the larger property and that the larger property is described as Schedule 'A' property in the Memorandum of Petition.

¶62

ii. The portions occupied by the first petitioner are described in Schedule 'B' property in the Memorandum of Petition, and the portion occupied by the second petitioner is described as Schedule 'C' property in the Memorandum Of Petition.

¶63

iii. This Court has granted relief in respect of each portions occupied by the petitioners, but in the order dated

¶64

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:53047 WP No. 34831 of 2024

¶66

20.12.2024 only the details of the two portions occupied by the first petitioner are mentioned, and consequentially, the respondents have permitted only the first petitioner to occupy the premises.

¶67

iv. The second petitioner has also remitted the rents, as is required by this Court's order, but it is not able to take possession because the details of its premises are not mentioned in this Court's order dated 20.12.2024.

¶68

Sri. Jagadeeswara N.R., the learned counsel for the BBMP and its officers, is heard in the light of the afore.

¶69

It is seen from the Memorandum of Petition that the petitioners have stated unequivocally that the first petitioner is in possession of two premises described in Schedule 'B' for the purposes of its business under the name and style, " Oodadu Technology Private Limited ", and that the second petitioner is in possession of the premises measuring 800 Sq.ft in the second floor for the purposes of its

¶70

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:53047 WP No. 34831 of 2024

¶72

business under the name and style, " Urban Wave Reality ". This Court has allowed the petition without distinguishing between the two petitioners.

¶73

Therefore, the application in I.A.No.1/2025 stands disposed of directing the second respondent - the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP to break open the seal of the premises measuring 800 Sq Ft in the second floor [ mentioned as Schedule C property in the Memorandum of Petition ] used by the second petitioner for the business under the name and style, " Urban Wave Reality " subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2024.

¶74

It is needless to observe that the second petitioner's right to occupy the subject premises will be only if there is no default in paying the rents at the aforesaid rate.

¶75

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶76

RB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Oodadu Technology Private Limited v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oodadu Technology Private Limited 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

Zuari World India Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Anjulamma Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. P R Radhakrishna Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt v M Sheela Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Kanchana Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri.Sajjan Raj Vs the Commissioner