Partly allowed¶61

M/S Labyath H R Services v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WP/1998/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Forfeiture of lease deposit; termination of lease; COVID-19 pandemic force majeure; Tumakuru Urban Development Authority (TUDA); Samudayabhavan premises; writ of certiorari under Articles 226 & 227, Constitution of India; setting aside of forfeiture order dated 20.07.2022; quashing of recovery notices (Annexures-J and K); fresh representation and sympathetic reconsideration within fixed timelines; opportunity of being heard; Karnataka High Court, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part: impugned order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure-A) set aside; notices at Annexures-J and K quashed; petitioner to make a fresh representation within thirty days, to be considered sympathetically by the respondent authority with an appropriate order within sixty days of submission. ¶61

M/S Labyath H R Services Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure-A) forfeiting the petitioner's deposit and the consequent notices (Annexures-J and K) demanding further amounts should be set aside, considering that the petitioner could not utilise the leased premises during the COVID-19 pandemic owing to force majeure factors. +1 more

¶53

Court's answer

The lease was granted in 2020 and the impugned order passed on 20.07.2022; that period was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and there is considerable force in the submission that due to force majeure factors the petitioner was not in a position to utilise the premises for marriages and other public functions/ceremonies.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The respondent authorities ought to have been considerate of the pandemic/force majeure aspect before proceeding to pass the impugned order forfeiting the deposited amount.

¶54

Key takeaways

This Court held that the order at Annexure-A requires to be set aside and that an opportunity of being heard be provided to the petitioner.ratio¶55
The petitioner was directed to make a representation to the respondent authorities within thirty days of the certified copy of the order, which the respondent authority shall consider sympathetically and pass an appropriate order one way or the other within sixty days of its submission.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M.G.S. Kamal, J.), W.P. No. 1998 of 2023 (GM-TEN), oral order dated 07.01.2026: Petitioner, lessee of Samudayabhavan premises from TUDA (lease agreement dated 30.01.2020; initial deposit of Rs.18,20,024/- paid on 22.11.2018), could conduct no business owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the authorities used the premises to accommodate defence personnel. Respondent No.2 nevertheless terminated the lease and forfeited the deposit by order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure-A) and issued notices (Annexures-J and K) demanding a further Rs.6,06,688/- as alleged rent arrears. Holding that the lease period coincided with the pandemic, that force majeure factors prevented utilisation of the premises, and that the authorities ought to have been considerate of this before forfeiting the amount, the Court set aside Annexure-A and quashed Annexures-J and K, permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation within thirty days, to be considered sympathetically with an appropriate order within sixty days. Petition allowed in part.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:981 WP No. 1998 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 1998 OF 2023 (GM-TEN)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/s.LABYATH H R SERVICES O/A NO. 237, 3^RD C CROSS, 3^RD STAGE, 2^ND BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. P.R BASAVARAJU,

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. K S MALLIKARJUNAIAH.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BEGNALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA) BELAGUMBA ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 106.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. B.P. RAHDA, AGA FOR R1;

¶20

SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:981 WP No. 1998 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/07/2022 ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXURE-J AND K DATED 23/09/2022 AND 19/12/2022 ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2022 produced at Annexure-A and the

¶29

consequent notices issued by respondent No.2 produced at Annexures-J and K calling upon the petitioner to pay

¶30

amount in excess of amount already forfeited.

¶31

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was a successful bidder and was granted lease in respect of the subject premises to be used for the purpose of running Samudayabhavan. That the lease agreement was entered into on 30.01.2020. However, the

¶32

petitioner could not conduct any business in view of COVID 19 pandemic and thus incurred huge financial loss. During

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:981 WP No. 1998 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

the said period respondent authorities have utilised the

¶37

said property to accommodate defence personnel. Petitioner had paid initial deposit of Rs.18,20,024/- on 22.11.2018 and he has not earned a single rupee. Respondent unmindful of these facts proceeded to pass the impugned order terminating the lease agreement and forfeiting the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner. In addition have called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,06,688/- allegedly towards the arrears of rental amount constraining him to approach this Court. He further submits the premises which was given to the petitioner was without any basic facility such as water, backup power etc. Therefore, he seeks for quashing of the impugned order.

¶38

Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that the petitioner had approached respondent-State and that his grievance has not been considered resulting in passing of the order as per Annexure-A. As such, petitioner cannot

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:981 WP No. 1998 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

claim that he had not been provided any opportunity of

¶43

being heard. He further submits though a notice was issued to the petitioner, without complying the same petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of forfeiture and cancellation.

¶44

After arguing the matter at length learned counsel for petitioner submits if an opportunity is provided with a direction to respondent authorities to reconsider the request of the petitioner to provide amenities and facilities enabling him to run the business in the demised premise on a reasonable rate of rent, the purpose of the petition would be served.

¶45

In response, Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel

¶46

for respondent No.2 submits that if a fresh representation is made by the petitioner to respondent No.2, the same

¶47

would be considered in accordance with law.

¶48

Submission taken on record.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:981 WP No. 1998 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

From the undisputed fact it is clear that the lease

¶53

was granted in favour of petitioner in the year 2020 and the impugned order is passed on 20.07.2022. It is of a common knowledge that the said period was affected by COVID19 pandemic. There is considerable force in the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner that due to force majeure factors he was not in a position to utilise the premises for the purpose for which it was taken namely to provide the same for marriages and other public functions/ceremonies.

¶54

The respondent authorities ought to have been considerate of this aspect of the matter before proceeding to pass the impugned order forfeiting the amount as sought to be done in the instant case.

¶55

This Court under the circumstances is of the considered view that order at Annexure-A requires to be set aside and an opportunity of being heard be provided to the petitioner.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:981 WP No. 1998 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Hence, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

Petition is allowed in part.

¶62

Impugned order dated 20.07.2022 at Annexure-A is set aside. Consequently notices at Annexures-J and K are quashed.

¶63

Petitioner shall make a representation to the respondent authorities within thirty days from the date of certified copy of this order and respondent authority shall consider the same sympathetically and appropriate order one way or the other be passed within sixty days from the date of submission of such representation.

¶64

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶65

SBN

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

M/S Labyath H R Services v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Labyath H R Services v. the State of Karnataka

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

The National Integrated Medical Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Maral Fishers Farmer Producers Trust( R) Vs the Director

Kumari Renukamba Vs the Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes

M/S Pernod Ricard India Pvirate Limited Vs Union of India

Mrs Rajeshwari Vs Bank of India

Minerva Mills Vs the Estate Officer