Dismissed¶¶51

Mr Suresh Poojary v. Smt. Anasuya Shetty

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2026WP/11832/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.), 10-04-2026, WP No. 11832 of 2026 (GM-RES): dismissed writ petition by ex-canteen lessee whose lease expired 31.12.2024; no subsisting leasehold right, so no enforceable right to possession; Article 226 mandamus against dispossession refused despite settled-possession/due-process principle; alleged outstanding dues no bar to respondents acting in accordance with law; liberty to join any tender/public auction subject to eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Having continued in occupation beyond the expiry of the lease on 31.12.2024 without formal renewal or extension, the petitioner has no subsisting leasehold right and cannot assert any legally enforceable right to continue in possession of the premises. ¶¶38

Mr Suresh Poojary Vs Smt. Anasuya Shetty — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents 2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioner from the University Canteen premises at Hampankatte, Mangaluru, otherwise than by due process of law. +1 more

¶¶29

Court's answer

¶¶38

Ratio / Principle

Given the admitted position that the lease has expired and the petitioner has overstayed without any contractual or statutory backing, the Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant the relief as sought for.

¶¶43

Key takeaways

It is trite that even a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except by following due process of law; however, on the admitted facts of this case the Court did not rest relief on this principle.obiter¶¶43
The claim relating to alleged outstanding dues is not a ground to interdict the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law.ratio¶¶43
If the respondents have initiated steps to allot the canteen premises by way of public auction or tender process and the time stipulated for submission of bids has not expired, it is open to the petitioner to participate in such process, subject to eligibility and in accordance with the governing terms and conditions.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a former canteen lessee of Govt. University College, Mangalore, seeking mandamus to restrain respondents 2 and 3 (Mangalore University and the College Principal) from dispossessing him from the University Canteen premises at Hampankatte, Mangaluru otherwise than by due process of law, and a direction to respondent No.3 to clear alleged outstanding dues. Held: the lease commenced on 01.12.2023 and came to an end on 31.12.2024; the petitioner's continued occupation beyond expiry without formal renewal or extension left him without a subsisting leasehold right or any legally enforceable right to continue in possession. While it is trite that even a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 in view of the admitted expiry of the lease and overstayal without contractual or statutory backing; the alleged-dues claim was held not to be a ground to interdict the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law. The petitioner was left free to participate in any public auction or tender for the canteen premises, subject to eligibility and the governing terms, if initiated and if the bid window remained open. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20412 WP No. 11832 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11832 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SURESH POOJARY S/O. SHARIDHARA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT G-3, SONY PARADISE TELECOM HOUSE ROAD, PANDESHWER MANGALORE-01.

¶9

&PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. ANASUYA SHETTY RETD. PRINCIPAL OF GOVT. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, MANGALORE AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT ATHREYA NILAYA BETHANY CONVENT ROAD BENDORE, MANGALORE-02.

¶14

MANGALORE UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MANGALA GANGOTRI KONAJE, MANGALORE-574199.

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL

¶16

GOVT. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE MANGALORE, U.P MALLAYA ROAD HAMPANKATTE, MANGALORE-575001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:20412 WP No. 11832 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K DISTRICT OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE-01

¶21

&RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 AND R3 NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER UNLAWFULLY FROM HIS BUSINESS AT THE UNIVERSITY CANTEEN PERMISES SITUATED IN HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALURU, WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶25

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking issuance

¶29

of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioner from the University Canteen premises situated at Hampankatte,

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20412 WP No. 11832 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Mangaluru, otherwise than by due process of law, and further seeking a direction against respondent No.3 to clear the alleged outstanding dues payable to the petitioner.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶34

petitioner. Perused the material placed on record.

¶35

On a careful examination of the pleadings and

¶36

documents, it is evident that the petitioner was inducted as a lessee to run a canteen in the college premises under

¶37

a lease arrangement commencing from 01.12.2023. The tenure of the lease, as borne out from the records, was limited and came to an end on 31.12.2024. However, it is

¶38

also not in dispute that the petitioner has continued in occupation even beyond the expiry of the lease period without there being any formal renewal or extension of the lease in his favour. In the absence of a subsisting leasehold right, the petitioner cannot assert any legally

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:20412 WP No. 11832 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

enforceable right to continue in possession of the premises.

¶43

Insofar as the apprehension relating to dispossession is concerned, it is trite that even a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except by following due process of law. However, in the present case, having regard to the admitted position that the lease has expired and that the petitioner has overstayed without any contractual or statutory backing, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant the relief as sought for. The claim relating to alleged outstanding dues is also not a ground to interdict the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law.

¶44

Nevertheless, it is observed that if the

¶45

respondents have initiated steps to allot the canteen premises by way of public auction or tender process, and if the time stipulated for submission of bids has not expired,

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:20412 WP No. 11832 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

it is open to the petitioner to participate in such process, subject to eligibility and in accordance with the terms and conditions governing the tender/auction.

¶50

With the above observations, the writ petition

¶51

stands dismissed .

¶52

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶53

ALB

¶54

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2

Mr Suresh Poojary v. Smt. Anasuya Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Suresh Poojary v. Smt. Anasuya Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aryadhan Financial Solutions Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Surendra Poojari @ Sooru Vs the Union of India

Mariya Deepa P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Honnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Arun T a Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Samaraat Agencies Vs the State of Karnataka