Disposed¶40

M/S Nayan and Patel Automobiles v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2026WP/17333/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; WP No. 17333 of 2026 (LB-BMP); decided 25.06.2026 by B. M. Shyam Prasad J. Keywords: Car Spa; Trade License; tenant holding over; expiry of lease period; decree for ejection; eviction; Show Cause Notice; Section 303 Greater Bengaluru Governance Act 2024; Greater Bengaluru Authority; Health Inspector Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone; Articles 226 and 227; writ of prohibition; defer action; reasoned order; response by 15.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a response to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.2026 (Annexure-A) by 15.07.2026; first and second respondents to defer all action until the petitioner's representation is duly considered by a reasoned order in the light of the Court's observations. ¶40

M/S Nayan and Patel Automobiles Vs Greater… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether eviction/action under Section 303 of the GBG Act can proceed against the petitioner where, on expiry of the lease period, the petitioner continues in possession as a tenant holding over who is not to be dispossessed otherwise than by a decree. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

In the settled position of law which the second respondent must consider, a tenant, on expiry of the lease period, continues in possession of the premises as a tenant holding over, with the right not to be dispossessed otherwise than by a decree.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner must be required to file its response to the Show Cause Notice, and must have reasonable time to do so, without the second respondent acting precipitately.

¶38

Key takeaways

The first and second respondents were called upon to defer all action until the petitioner's representation, to be filed by 15.07.2026, is duly considered by a reasoned order in the light of the Court's observations.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a registered partnership firm running a Car Spa on Mysuru Road, Bengaluru, aggrieved by a Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.2026 (No. AAY/KEM.V/PR/43/2026-27, Annexure-A) issued by the Health Inspector, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Zone, indicating action under Section 303 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 on the landowner's objection that the lease period had expired. Held, per the settled position noted by the Court which the second respondent must consider: a tenant who continues in possession after expiry of the lease period does so as a tenant holding over, with the right not to be dispossessed otherwise by a decree. The petitioner had to be afforded reasonable time to respond to the notice without precipitate action. Petition disposed of: response permitted by 15.07.2026, and respondents 1 and 2 called upon to defer all action until the representation is duly considered by a reasoned order in the light of the Court's observations.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:31667 WP No. 17333 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 17333 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

M/S NAYAN AND PATEL AUTOMOBILES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932/ HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 77, OPP R.V COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DUVASAPALYA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. NAYAN GOWDA S/O DR GOPAL GOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY DR. PRAJWAL K ARADHYA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560002 (NEAR TOWN HALL AND OPPOSITE THE LIC BUILDING) BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:31667 WP No. 17333 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

HEALTH INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE, KENGERI SUB DIVISION, KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560060.

¶20

MR C PURUSHOTHAM S/O LT GK CHIKKANARASIMHAIH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A NO. 212 BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIVANAGARA, BENGALURU-560080.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶24

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION RESTRAINING RESPONDENT NO. 2 PROCEEDINGS WITH THE PROCESS OF EVICTION OF THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE DATED 29.05.2026 BEARING NUMBER AAY/KEM.V/PR/43/2026-27 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A;

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

¶26

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:31667 WP No. 17333 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner runs a Car Spa in the property bearing No.77, Opposite R.V. College of Engineering, Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Mysuru Road, Bengaluru–560 059 [the subject property], and the petitioner's grievance is with the Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.2026 [Annexure-A] issued by the second respondent. The second respondent has issued this Notice informing the petitioner that [a] he is running a Car Spa unauthorizedly; [b] the landowner has filed objections stating that he cannot continue with the business because the lease period has expired; and [c] the petitioner must offer its explanation lest there be action under Section 303 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, ‘the GBG Act’ ].

¶33

The petitioner can show cause against an action under Section 303 of the GBG Act. If the petitioner files response contending inter alia that the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:31667 WP No. 17333 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

petitioner’s possession of the subject property would be lawful until there is a decree for ejection in a properly instituted suit, and until there is such ejection, the petitioner’s occupation of the premises cannot be unlawful, or the petitioner be denied Trade License on that score.

¶38

The second respondent will have to consider the same in the light of the settled position of law that a tenant, on expiry of the lease period, continues in possession of the subject premises/property as a Tenant Holding Over with the right not to be dispossessed otherwise by a decree. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the petitioner must file its response to the Show Cause Notice and must have a reasonable time without the second respondent being precipitous. Hence the following.

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition stands disposed of

¶41

reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:31667 WP No. 17333 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

response to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.2026 [Annexure-A] by 15.07.2026 calling upon the first and the second respondents to defer all action until the petitioner’s representation is duly considered by a reasoned order in the light of this Court’s observations.

¶46

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶47

AN/-

M/S Nayan and Patel Automobiles v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Nayan and Patel Automobiles v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baburengan Mahendran Vs the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

Smt Nisarga M Gowda Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (AUDIT)-2.6

Mr Subash Vs Joint Commissioner

Sri K Halesh Vs the Greater Bengaluru Authority

M/S Empire Industries Limited Vs the Union of India

Sri. G. P. Divakar Vs the Commissioner