Disposed

Shri Dhanaraj v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2026WP/52736/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner held PWD land on a 25-year registered lease expiring in 2030. The PWD issued a notice requiring him to vacate alleging breach of lease terms. The High Court held that as the lease was not statutory, eviction had to follow applicable law, and quashed the vacation notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.12.2019 quashed; liberty reserved to respondent No.2-PWD to initiate eviction proceedings in accordance with law.

Shri Dhanaraj Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:38065 WP No. 52736 of 2019

¶4

CNR: KAHC010558792019

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 52736 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI. DHANARAJ AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O SHIVALINGAPPA TALAMPALLI, HOUSE NO.12, SUGAN VILLA, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY DR. PRAJWAL K. ARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR

¶13

SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, 2^ND FLOOR, ANNEXE BUILDING, NEAR, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. M. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 (PRODUCED AT ANNX-A).

¶21

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:38065 WP No. 52736 of 2019

¶24

CNR: KAHC010558792019

¶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, who was granted lease of lands bearing in Sy.Nos.37, 39/1, 39/2, 40/1 and 42/2 situated at Medahalli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Urban District measuring 36,955 Sq. Mtrs., belonging to respondent No.2-Public Works Department on an annual rental basis at Rs.2,10,000/-, is before this Court being aggrieved by a notice dated 13.12.2019 issued by the respondent No.2-PWD calling upon the petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the land and buildings, if any, existing thereon on or before 27.12.2019.

¶29

Heard and perused the records.

¶30

Annexure-B is the registered deed of lease dated 05.10.2005 executed by the respondent No.1-State in favour of the petitioner, granting lease in respect of the aforesaid land for a period of 25 years, commencing from 05.10.2005, expiring on 04.10.2030.

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:38065 WP No. 52736 of 2019

¶34

CNR: KAHC010558792019

¶35

The lease does not appear to have been granted in terms of any statutory provision. Thus, the transaction is pure and simple lease and relationship between the respondent-State and the petitioner is as that of a landlord and tenant.

¶36

Since allegation of breach of lease terms are made in the notice dated 13.12.2019, the respondent authorities are required to have recourse in terms of the applicable law seeking eviction of the petitioner. Order dated 13.12.2019 at Annexure-A is therefore unsustainable.

¶37

Accordingly, following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) Petition is disposed of .

¶40

(ii) I mpugned order issued by respondent No.2-PWD dated 13.12.2019, as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed.

¶41

(iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent No.2-PWD to initiate proceedings for eviction of the petitioner, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law.

¶42

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

¶43

RL/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Shri Dhanaraj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Dhanaraj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bhayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Papanna T Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mahabalesh K B Vs Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Basavaraj Mallikarjun Yeragal Vs Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Smt. Shija .S Vs Union of India

Badruddin Mosque Sunni Vs Mr Sayeed