Dismissed¶44

Sri Shivakumar G v. Karnataka State Co. Operative Handloom Weavers Federation Ltd.

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2026WP/5986/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC writ petition dismissed; eviction of chronic-defaulter monthly tenant under Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 upheld; S.5(1) order and S.10 appellate dismissal affirmed; natural justice/competence objections not examined for Article 226 relief; arrears Rs. 25,10,102/-; conduct-based denial of discretion.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to examine the grounds urged in the writ petition, holding that the conduct of the petitioner, a chronic defaulter in payment of rent, itself disentitled him from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ¶39

Sri Shivakumar G Vs Karnataka State Co. Operative… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the eviction order passed under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1974 and affirmed in appeal suffered from violation of principles of natural justice and want of competence of the Estate Officer, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The concurrent orders passed by the competent authority (Estate Officer under Section 5(1)) and the Appellate Authority do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

¶39

Key takeaways

Passing observation that a long rope was given to the petitioner, who continued to enjoy the benefit of occupying public property for several years without accounting for the lawful rent payable to the first respondent, reflecting laxity on the part of the authorities.obiter¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Sachin Shankar Magadum J.), W.P. No. 5986 of 2026 (GM-PP), decided 06.03.2026 — Dismissed. A monthly tenant in occupation of public premises of respondent No.1 federation since 2009, and a chronic defaulter in payment of rent from April 2016 to 2024 with arrears determined at Rs. 25,10,102/-, challenged the order dated 02.02.2026 in M.A. No. 14/2025 passed by the XL Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCCH No.41) dismissing his appeal under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971, against the Authorized Officer's eviction order under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), Act, 1974. The petitioner's objections of breach of natural justice and want of competence of the Estate Officer were not examined: the Court held that his own conduct as a chronic defaulter disentitled him from discretionary relief under Article 226, found the concurrent orders of the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority free of infirmity, observed that a long rope had been given to him while the authorities were lax in acting earlier, and dismissed the writ petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13719 WP No. 5986 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 5986 OF 2026 (GM-PP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SHIVAKUMAR G S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT. NO.9, 12^TH CROSS SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI C.M. RAJANEESH, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

KARNATAKA STATE CO OPERATIVE HANDLOOM WEAVERS FEDERATION LTD (CAUVERY HANDLOOMS) A REGISTERED CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 NO.203,204, 8^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 072 REP. BY ITS MANAGIND DIRECTOR.

¶13

THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES SOUTH ZONE BENGALURU AND THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, WITH RESPECT TO THE PUBLIC PREMISES OF THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDLOOM WEAVERS FEDERATION LTD. AT BENGALURU ASVNV BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI VENUGOPALA S, ADV., FOR R-1; SRI ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R-2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13719 WP No. 5986 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DT.02.02.2026 TS M.A. 14/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCCH NO.41), DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED U/SEC. 10 OF THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANT) ACT, 1971 VIDE ANNEXURE- A.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

1. Captioned petition is by a chronic defaulter

¶22

tenant assailing the concurrent orders of the authorities, wherein the authorized officer on enquiry has passed an order under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), Act, 1974 ( for short, 'the Act of 1974) calling upon the petitioner to forthwith handover the vacant possession of the premises. The said order is affirmed in M.A.No.14/2025.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the records.

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13719 WP No. 5986 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

Respondent No.1 appointed an Estate Officer

¶27

to conduct an enquiry and to take steps for securing possession of the leased premises from the petitioner– tenant. Pursuant to the said enquiry, the Assistant Officer passed an order under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1974 directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises. The said order was challenged before the Appellate Authority, which has affirmed the order passed by the Estate Officer.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, vehemently contended that the order passed by the Estate Officer is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that no reasonable opportunity was afforded before passing the impugned order and that the Estate Officer lacked the competence to conduct the enquiry. On these grounds, it is contended that the concurrent orders passed by the authorities suffer from serious legal infirmities and therefore warrant

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:13719 WP No. 5986 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

On a repeated query by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the nature of tenancy, the agreed rate of rent and the arrears, learned counsel submitted that there are no arrears payable by the petitioner. He would further contend that the arrears determined by the Estate Officer and affirmed by the Appellate Authority to the tune of 25,10,102/- are wholly without basis and therefore seek indulgence of this Court.

¶34

On examination of the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority while declining to entertain the petitioner’s appeal under Section 10 of the Act of 1974, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority has specifically adverted to the outstanding dues payable by

¶35

the petitioner. The material on record discloses a rather disturbing state of affairs relating to occupation of a public

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13719 WP No. 5986 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

property. The premises in question was leased out to the petitioner on a monthly tenancy and the petitioner has been in occupation of the said premises since the year 2009. However, the records further reveal that the petitioner has remained a chronic defaulter in payment of

¶39

rent from April 2016 till 2024. The arrears of rent, as determined by the competent authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, amount to 25,10,102/-. It is in this backdrop that this Court is not inclined to examine the grounds urged in the writ petition, as the conduct of the petitioner itself disentitles him from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

It is also not in dispute that the lease in favour of the petitioner was purely on a monthly tenancy. Despite such a limited right, the petitioner has continued to squat over the public property since 2016 without discharging his obligation to pay the agreed rent. The facts of the case also reflect considerable laxity on the part of the authorities in not initiating appropriate action at the

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13719 WP No. 5986 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

earliest point of time. A long rope appears to have been given to the petitioner, who has continued to enjoy the benefit of occupying a public property for several years without accounting for the lawful rent payable to the first respondent. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is found to be a chronic defaulter since April 2016 and also bearing in mind that the lease itself was only on a monthto-month basis, this Court is of the view that the concurrent orders passed by the competent authority as well as the Appellate Authority do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

¶44

Writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶45

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶46

NMS

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri Shivakumar G v. Karnataka State Co. Operative Handloom Weavers Federation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivakumar G v. Karnataka State Co. Operative Handloom Weavers Federation Ltd.

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

Mrs. Pichamani Vs the Bhavasara Bank

Shri Shantesh Gureddi, Vs Assistant Director

Sri Ranganath Enterprises, Vs State of Karnataka

Ms.X Vs State of Karnataka

Kaveriyappa N T Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt.B Mangala Gowri Vs State of Karnataka