The National Textile Corporation Vs Bangalore… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

The National Textile Corporation Vs Bangalore… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; Demand Notice dated 07.01.2026 quashed and proceedings restored to the respondent to recompute rental arrears taking note of amounts offered so far, the agreed rentals, and the petitioner's willingness to pay enhanced rentals from 31.04.2016 on par with occupants of similar premises in the complex.

Issue for consideration

Whether the demand notice dated 07.01.2026 calling upon the petitioner to pay rental arrears of Rs.2,86,009/- can be sustained when it allegedly does not account for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- offered by the petitioner and treats the petitioner differently from others occupying similar shops in the complex. +1 more

Court's answer

If there is computational error in calling upon the petitioner to pay rental arrears, there is reason for interference; the Court interfered on that score.

Ratio / Principle

Rental dues must be computed not only accounting for the amounts already paid but also based on the agreed rentals.

Key takeaways

Because the petitioner is willing to offer a higher rent from 2016 as offered by occupants of similar premises in the complex, the respondent must treat this as a concession made and also compute the rental arrears based on such concession.ratio¶40
The petition is allowed quashing the Demand Notice dated 07.01.2026, restoring the proceedings to the respondent for due consideration in the light of the Court's observations.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Demand notice for rental arrears – Petitioner, a Government of India undertaking in occupation of a shop in Jayanagar Shopping Complex owned by respondent corporation for decades, challenged demand notice dated 07.01.2026 calling upon it to pay rental arrears of Rs.2,86,009/- – Respondent's counsel conceded there could be certain arithmetic errors in the demand – Held: if there is computational error in calling upon the petitioner to pay rental arrears, there is reason for interference; rental dues must be computed not only accounting for amounts already paid but also based on the agreed rentals; the petitioner's willingness to pay a higher rent from 2016 on par with occupants of similar premises in the complex must be treated as a concession and the arrears computed accordingly – Petition allowed, Demand Notice dated 07.01.2026 quashed, proceedings restored to respondent for due consideration (B M Shyam Prasad, J.).

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30084 WP No. 12291 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12291 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

THE NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (APKK AND M) LIMITED

(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) MARKETING DIVISION, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINERVA MILLS COMPOUND, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE 560023 REPRESENTED BY

THE DIVISIONAL GENERAL MANAGER

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. ABHINAY YT., ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONER

AND:

BANGALORE SOUTH CITY CORPORATION GBA, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560011 REPRESENTED BY ITS

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30084 WP No. 12291 of 2026

HC-KAR

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. SUMANGALA GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 7.1.2026 BEARING NO. SAKUAA (DA- MA)/PR/334/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE C); DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO DETERMINE THE LICENSE FEE ON PAR WITH THE LICENSE FEE PAID BY THE ADJOINING SHOPS OF SIMILAR MEASUREMENTS.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30084 WP No. 12291 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is a public enterprise of the Union of India, and it is in occupation of a shop in Jayanagar Shopping Complex owned by the respondent for decades. The first round of litigation between the parties is with the writ petition being filed in the year 2008 [W.P.No.1147/2008] by the petitioner against the respondent asserting that the respondent cannot, dehors the contract, unilaterally increase the rent.

This Court, in disposing of this petition on 30.06.2009, has called upon the petitioner to pay enhanced rentals from 01.04.2004. When queried, Mr. Abhinay Y T submits that the petitioner has paid enhanced rentals from this period. The petitioner has called in question the demand notice dated 07.01.2026. The respondent has issued this notice

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30084 WP No. 12291 of 2026

HC-KAR

calling upon the petitioner to pay the rental arrears of

Rs.2,86,009/-.

Mr. Abhinay Y T submits that this

demand cannot be sustained because it does not account for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- that has been offered by the petitioner as accruing rentals and that the demand for rental arrears treats the petitioner differently from the others who are in occupation of similar shops in the complex. Ms. Sumangala Gurudev Gachchinamath, the learned counsel for the respondent on instructions, submits that the arrears are computed considering the amounts offered by the petitioner but there could be certain arithmetic errors in the calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,86,009/-.

If there is computational error in calling upon the petitioner to pay rental arrears, there is reason for interference, and while there is interference on that score, this Court must also

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30084 WP No. 12291 of 2026

HC-KAR

observe that the rental dues must be computed not only accounting for the amounts that are already paid but also based on the agreed rentals. Further, this Court is of the opinion that because the petitioner is willing to offer a higher rent from 2016 as offered by the occupants of similar premises in the complex, the respondent must consider this as a concession made and also compute the rental arrears based on such concession. In the light of the afore, the following.

ORDER

[a] The petition is allowed quashing the Demand Notice dated 07.01.2026 restoring the proceedings to the respondent for due consideration in the light of this Court's observation.

[b] The respondent is directed to take note of the amounts offered so far and the petitioner's willingness to pay

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30084 WP No. 12291 of 2026

HC-KAR

enhanced rentals from 31.04.2016 on par with the rent charged to the occupants of similar premises in the complex.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

RB