Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mr. Balakrishna B L., Vs the Panchayath… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Mr. Balakrishna B L., Vs the Panchayath Development Mr. Balakrishna B L., v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Dismissed¶38

Mr. Balakrishna B L., v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2025WP/34739/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Justice R. Nataraj; WP No. 34739 of 2024 (LB-RES); decided 18 November 2025. Petitioner Balakrishna B.L. sought mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 to renew an expired five-year lease (rental agreement dated 01.11.2019, expiring 31.10.2024) over commercial premises in Sy.No.385/P, Mavinakere grama, Kalasa Town and Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District, belonging to the Panchayath Development Officer, Kalasa Grama Panchayath, at enhanced reasonable rent with execution of a fresh lease deed. Held that a lessee whose lease term has ended has no locus standi to compel renewal; where the panchayath resolves to retain the premises for its own use and not allot them to anyone, the tenant is bound to quit and deliver vacant possession; no direction to extend the lease can be issued. Respondent contended the petitioner was irregular in paying rent and had obtained an interim stay while continuing in occupation. Keywords: lease renewal, expired lease, locus standi, mandamus, writ petition, gram panchayat, commercial premises, vacant possession, Karnataka High Court.

What did the court decide?

If the term of the lease has come to an end, the petitioner has no locus standi to compel the respondent to renew the lease. ¶33

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, through a writ of mandamus, can compel the respondent to consider his representation dated 25.10.2024 and renew the lease of the commercial premises in Sy.No.385/P, Mavinakere grama, Kalasa, for a further period of 5 years after the term expired on 31.10.2024. +1 more

Court's answer

If the term of the lease has come to an end, the petitioner has no locus standi to compel the respondent to renew the lease.

Ratio / Principle

As the respondent has decided not to allot the shop in the petitioner's possession to any person and intends to use the premises for its own purposes, the petitioner is bound to quit and deliver vacant possession of the shop to the respondent.

Key takeaways

Consequently, no direction can be issued to the respondent to extend the lease in favour of the petitioner.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus cannot compel a lessor to renew an expired lease: A lessee who took the commercial premises of Kalasa Grama Panchayath on a rental agreement dated 01.11.2019 for five years, put up a structure with permission and carried on a coffee processing business, sought a writ of mandamus to have his representation of 25.10.2024 considered so as to renew the lease for a further five years at enhanced rent and to execute a fresh lease deed, after the term expired on 31.10.2024. Held: (i) once the term of the lease has come to an end, the petitioner has no locus standi to compel the respondent to renew the lease; (ii) since the respondent has resolved not to allot the premises to anyone and to use them for its own purposes, the petitioner is bound to quit and deliver vacant possession; and (iii) consequently, no direction can be issued to extend the lease in favour of the petitioner. Writ petition (Arts. 226 and 227) dismissed. (Paras 7-8)

A

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:47374 WP No. 34739 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34739 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

MR. BALAKRISHNA.B.L., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE.LINGEGOWDA, RESIDING AT THALAGODU, NELLIKOTTA VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI AND TALUK-577124, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KALASA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALASA TOWN AND POST, KALASA TALUK-577124 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.MOHAN K.N., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED.25/10/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-F TO RENEW THE LEASE FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF AT LEAST 5 YEARS IN RESPECT OF COMMERCIAL PREMISES CONSTRUCTED ON SY.NO.385/P, MAVINAKERE GRAMA, KALASA TOWN AND TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47374 WP No. 34739 of 2024

HC-KAR

DISTRICT MEASURING EAST TO WEST: (86 PLUS 66)/2 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH: 176 FEET WITH EXISTING SHED AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the representation dated 25.10.2024 and renew the lease for a further period of 5 years in respect of the commercial premises in survey No.385/P, Mavinakere grama, Kalasa Town and Taluk, Chikkmagalur District. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to renew the lease for a further period of 5 years at enhanced reasonable rate of rent and to execute a fresh lease deed.

(i) The petitioner claims that the respondent had invited tenders to lease out commercial premises belonging to it. Accordingly, the respondent accepted the bid of the petitioner and executed a rental agreement dated 01.11.2019, agreeing to let out the premises for a period of 5 years. The petitioner claims that he had put up a structure by obtaining permission from the

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47374 WP No. 34739 of 2024

HC-KAR

respondent and is carrying on business. He contends that after the expiry of the lease on 31.10.2024, he requested the respondent to extend the lease period by another 5 years. However, the said representation is not considered and the respondent is now attempting to dispossess the petitioner on the ground that the term has expired.

(ii) The petitioner therefore submitted a representation on 25.10.2024 requesting the respondent to renew the lease. The petitioner claims that said representation is not considered and therefore is before this Court seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner has invested lakhs of rupees for establishing a coffee processing unit. He therefore prays that the lease be extended by another 5 years at enhanced rent.

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent, who contends that the petitioner has no locus standi to compel the respondent to renew the lease for another 5 years. It is claimed that the representation of the petitioner dated 29.10.2024 was

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47374 WP No. 34739 of 2024

HC-KAR

considered by the panchayath and it resolved not to extend the lease. It is also alleged that the petitioner is not regular in paying the rent and after the expiry of the lease on 31.10.2024, he was bound to vacate the premises but has filed this writ petition and obtained an interim stay and is continuing in the premises.

The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the above contentions and contended that the respondent has taken a decision not to lease the premises in occupation of the petitioner to anyone and that the respondent would use the said premises for its own purpose.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

If the term of the lease has come to an end, the petitioner has no locus standi to compel the respondent to renew the lease. Since it is the case of the respondent that it would henceforth not put up the shop in possession of the petitioner for allotment to any person and that it would use it for its own purposes, the petitioner is bound to quit and deliver vacant

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47374 WP No. 34739 of 2024

HC-KAR

possession of the shop to the respondent. Consequently, no direction can be issued to the respondent to extend the lease in

favour of the petitioner.

The writ petition stands dismissed .

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner, through a writ of mandamus, can compel the respondent to consider his representation dated 25.10.2024 and renew the lease of the commercial premises in Sy.No.385/P, Mavinakere grama, Kalasa, for a further period of 5 years after the term expired on 31.10.2024.¶20
The court held
If the term of the lease has come to an end, the petitioner has no locus standi to compel the respondent to renew the lease.ratio¶33
2.
Whether the respondent can be directed to renew the lease for a further period of 5 years at an enhanced reasonable rate of rent and to execute a fresh lease deed.¶20

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227¶13

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
The respondent panchayath considered the petitioner's representation (dated 29.10.2024 as contended by the respondent) and resolved not to extend the lease, which had expired on 31.10.2024; the petitioner challenges this refusal to renew.¶30
Kalasa Grama Panchayath
Prior proceeding
Respondent invited tenders for its commercial premises and accepted the petitioner's bid, executing a rental agreement dated 01.11.2019 for a period of 5 years.¶21
Prior proceeding
Petitioner claims he put up a structure on the premises with permission from the respondent and carries on business there.¶21
Prior proceeding
Lease term expired on 31.10.2024; petitioner requested extension by another 5 years, which he alleges was not considered.¶24
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted a representation on 25.10.2024 requesting the respondent to renew the lease.¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed this writ petition, obtained an interim stay and continued in occupation of the premises.¶30

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Mr. Balakrishna B.L.¶7
Sri. Rajagopala Naidu
respondent
The Panchayath Development Officer, Kalasa Grama Panchayath¶12
Sri. Mohan K.N.

Coram

AI extract

Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Natarajauthor¶18

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 18 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 18 Dec 2024
Case no.: WP/34739/2024
CNR: KAHC010727832024
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: R. Natara
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Writ Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from R. Natara

Sri Srikanth Chowdary Marri @ Srikanth Vs the Chief Commissioner
17 Nov 2025
Girish Kumar T M Vs Deputy Commissioner
17 Nov 2025
Smt Muniyamma Since Deceased by Her Lrs Vs Sri Muninarasimhaiah
17 Nov 2025
B T Bhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka
18 Nov 2025
Surendra K Alias Sachin Vs the State of Karnataka
18 Nov 2025
Mr. Sudarshan Shastry Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
18 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

Mr. Balakrishna B L., v. the Panchayath Development Officer, WP/34739/2024 (KA), decided on 18 November 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227

View all statutes

Procedural history6

The respondent panchayath considered the petitioner's representation (dated 29.10.2024 as contended by the respondent) and resolved not to extend the lease, which had expired on 31.10.2024; the petitioner challenges this refusal to renew.Kalasa Grama Panchayath
Respondent invited tenders for its commercial premises and accepted the petitioner's bid, executing a rental agreement dated 01.11.2019 for a period of 5 years.
Petitioner claims he put up a structure on the premises with permission from the respondent and carries on business there.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Nataraj

Parties & counsel