Sri. H.K.Sripada Shankar Vs the Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri. H.K.Sripada Shankar Vs the Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Modification of the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge by deleting the direction for taking action against the appellant/petitioner under Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, eviction thereafter to proceed under the Act of 1974; with this modification the appeal stands disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction of the learned Single Judge to take action against the appellant under Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 should stand, or whether the appellant's eviction ought instead to be governed by the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974, given his occupation of the shop under a lease deed.

Court's answer

The provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 are applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the appellant had been in occupation of the shop in view of the lease deed executed in his favour.

Ratio / Principle

Once the lease deed has expired and has not been extended, the appellant is to be treated as an unauthorized occupant, and for his eviction the respondent-authority should take action as per the requirements of the Act of 1974 (Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974).

Key takeaways

The Division Bench deleted the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for taking action against the appellant/petitioner under Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal No. 869 of 2026 (LB-RES), filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Division Bench oral judgment of D K Singh and T.M.Nadaf, JJ. (per D K Singh, J.), dated 25.04.2026. The appellant, acting through his G.P.A. holder, had been the petitioner in W.P.No.28322/2018 challenging the order dated 18.06.2018 of the Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority cancelling the lease agreement under which he occupied the allotted shop; the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition, directing the Commissioner to take out proceedings under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 and Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, and to endeavour to conclude them within three months. Holding that the Act of 1974 applies because the appellant held occupation in view of a lease deed executed in his favour, and that once the lease deed has expired without extension he is to be treated as an unauthorized occupant whose eviction must be taken per the requirements of that Act, the Division Bench deleted the Single Judge's direction for action under Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 and, with that modification in the impugned judgment and order, disposed of the appeal.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22920-DB WA No. 869 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 869 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI H.K. SRIPADA SHANKAR S/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.790, NEAR MARUTHI TENT THONCHI KOPPAL, JANATHANAGAR MYSURU - 570 018

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

REPT. BY HIS G.P.A HOLDER SRI K. SANTHOSH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY R/O NO.152, 3RD CROSS, INDIRANAGAR MYSURU - 570 001.

(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADV., FOR SRI SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADV.)

…APPELLANT

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER

MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005.

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ZONAL OFFICE-04, MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22920-DB WA No. 869 of 2026

HC-KAR

MYSURU - 570 005.

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZONAL OFFICE-04, MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSURU - 570 005.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO BE SET ASIDE ONLY FOR WRIT PETITION ORDER TO SEEK ANY FURTHER RELIEF SEPARATE IA TO BE FILED AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF KANNADA PORTION IN WRIT PETITION ORDER, C, D TO BE FURNISHED.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The appellant was the petitioner in W.P.No.28322/2018 which was filed challenging the order dated 18.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority,

whereby the lease agreement on the basis of which he has been occupying the shop allotted to him, has been cancelled.

2. The learned Single Judge has passed the following directions while allowing the writ petition:-

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22920-DB WA No. 869 of 2026

HC-KAR

"(ii) The Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority is directed to take out proceedings in accordance with the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 and Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987.

(iii) The Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

3. It is to be noted that the learned Single Judge has

directed the authority to take action as per Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. However, the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1974) are applicable in the facts of the present case inasmuch as the appellant had been in occupation of the shop in view of the lease deed executed in his favour. Once the lease deed has expired and has not been extended, the appellant is to be treated as an unauthorized occupant and for his eviction, the respondent-authority should take action as per the requirements of the Act of 1974.

4. We, therefore, delete the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for taking action against the

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22920-DB WA No. 869 of 2026

HC-KAR

appellant/petitioner under Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987.

5. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned

judgment and order, the appeal stands disposed of .

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

RKA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1