This appeal is an intra-court appeal under

Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 filed

challenging the order dated 22.6.2022 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30912/2015.

2. Brief facts of the case leading rise to the filing

of this writ appeal are as follows :

Respondent No.3 initiated eviction proceedings

under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises

(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974

(hereinafter referred to as 8the Act9) against Mr.Raju

(deceased appellant, now represented by his legal

representatives). An order of eviction came to be

passed

by

respondent

No.3

vide

order

dated

26.6.2012. The said order of eviction was challenged

by the deceased appellant in M.A.No.20/2012 on the

file of the XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru

(CCH-42), which came to be allowed vide order dated

12.12.2013 and remitted the matter to respondent

- 4 -

No.3 for fresh disposal in accordance with law and

further directed the deceased appellant to pay the

amount of house rent allowance. The deceased

appellant aggrieved by the portion of the order

passed in M.A.20/2012 in regard to payment of

amount

of

HRA,

preferred

a

writ

petition

in

W.P.No.10997/2014. This Court vide order dated

28.8.2014 disposed of the writ petition and set aside

the portion of the order passed in the aforesaid

appeal pertaining to payment of HRA. Respondent

No.2 has passed an order dated 27.6.2015 directing

respondent No.3 to recover a sum of Rs.2,41,040/-

being the excess HRA paid to the deceased appellant.

The legal representatives of the deceased appellant

filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30912/2015. The

learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.6.2022

dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appellants

aggrieved by the same have filed this intra-court

appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

- 5 -

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits

that the respondents cannot recover the amount paid

to an employee due to no fault on his part. He

further submits that the proceedings initiated by

respondent

No.3

for

recovery

of

a

sum

of

Rs.2,41,040/- being the excess HRA paid to him from

his terminal benefit is contrary to the law laid down

by the Hon9ble Apex Court in the case of State of

Punjab

and

Others

v.

Rafiq

Masih

(white

washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

He submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and

erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.

Hence, prayed to allow the writ appeal.

5. Perused the records and considered the

submission of the learned counsel for the appellants.

6. It is not in dispute that the deceased

appellant viz. Raju was working as a Gardener in the

BBMP and was in occupation of the premises bearing

No.11, new No.1, 11^th cross, Mahalakshmi Layout,

Bengaluru.

Respondent

No.3

initiated

eviction

- 6 -

proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 1974.

Order of eviction came to be passed directing the

deceased

appellant

to

hand

over

the

vacant

possession of the premises. The deceased appellant

assailed the said order in M.A No.20/2012. The said

appeal was allowed vide order dated 12.12.2013 and

the order of eviction was set aside and remitted the

matter to respondent No.3 for fresh disposal in

accordance with law. A direction was issued to the

deceased appellant to return the house rent allowance

amount claimed by him from the Government. The

deceased appellant, aggrieved by the portion of the

direction to return the HRA amount claimed by him

from the Government, preferred a writ petition in

W.P.No.10997/2014. This Court vide order dated

28.4.2014 observed as under :

<Needless to observe that, in case it is

held upon proper adjudication that the

petitioner has to refund the HRA drawn by

him from the date of occupancy of the

premises in question, the same shall be

liable to be deducted from the terminal

- 7 -

benefits payable to the petitioner, soon

after

he

attains

the

age

of

superannuation=.

7. The deceased appellant did no