SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO.5993 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

DR.V. AJITH KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

S/O M VENKATESHAIAH,

SHOP NO.29, RHB COLONEY

BBMP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,

WHITFIELD ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA,

BENGALURU-560 048.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K K VASANTH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,

BENGALURU-560 048.

….RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY

2

COMMISSIONER

BBMP,

MAHDEVAPURA

ZONE,

BENGALURU AND ALSO IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL

NO.17/2009 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &

SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE CITY AND QUASH / SET -

ASIDE THE FINAL NOTICE / ORDER DATED 29.06.2009

PASSED

BY

THE

DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER

BBMP,

MAHDEVAPURA ZONE, BENGALURU AT ANNEX-F; AND

QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN

MIS.APPEAL NO.17/2009, DATED 30.11.2015 PASSED BY

VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE

CITY AT ANNEX-J & K.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

29.06.2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Mahadevapura

Zone,

Bangalore,

vide

Annexure-F and the judgment and decree passed in

Misc.Appeal No.17/2009 dated 30.11.2015, passed by

the VIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore

City (CCH-15), vide Annexures J & K, has filed the

present writ petition.

3

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ

petition are as under:

The petitioner is a lessee in respect of Shop

No.29 in a commercial complex, Mahadevapura. The

lease was for a period of 4 years 11 months on a

monthly rental of Rs.1,170/- and security deposit of

Rs.92,000/-. The petitioner is running a medical store

under the name and style of “Maduri Medical Stores”

by investing huge amount and having stock of

medicines worth more than Rs.8,00,000/-. Before the

expiry of lease period, the revenue officer of

Mahadevapura

Zone,

BBMP

issued

notice

of

termination on 19.09.2007. The said notice of

termination was challenged in W.P.No.20382/2007

which came to be disposed of on 13.06.2008,

reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke Clause-23

of the lease deed for appointment of an arbitrator.

The respondent issued Form-A on 11.08.2008 and

4

final notice on 29.06.2009, calling upon the petitioner

to handover the vacant possession. The petitioner

aggrieved by the order of eviction, preferred appeal in

Misc.Appeal No.17/2009 before the VIII Addl. City

Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-15), Bangalore. The

Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material on

record, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

learned counsel for respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the notice of termination of lease is not in

accordance with law. He further submits that the

Revenue Officer, BBMP, Mahadevapura Zone, has no

jurisdiction to terminate the lease and the notice of

termination is without jurisdiction. He further submits

that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner by

5

the Estate Officer and passed a final order of eviction.

He

submits

that

the

Appellate

Court

without

considering the said aspect, has proceeded to pass the

impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays

to allow the writ petition.

5.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent submits that the petitioner was a lessee in

Shop No.29 and the period of lease was 4 years 11

months. The respondent initiated proceedings under

the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (‘the Act’ for

short). He submits that the impugned orders passed

by the Estate Officer and the Appellate Court are

correct and does not call for any interference. Hence,

on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ

petition.

6

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the

successful

bidder

of

Shop

No.29,

Commercial

Complex, Mahadevapura, Bangalore in the public

auction held on 22.07.2004. It is not in dispute that

the said shop belongs to the respondent and said shop

is a public premises as defined under Section 2(e) of

the Act. Respondent issued notification auctioning

Shop

No.29

situated

at

Commercial

Complex,

Mahadevapura,

Bangalore.

Accordingly,

the

Commissioner, CMC, Mahadevapura Zone, Bangalore

executed a deed of lease on 09.08.2004, in favour of

the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.1,170/- for a

period of 4 years 11 months and pursuant to the deed

of lease, the petitioner has deposited Rs.92,000/- as a

security deposit. The said lease period expires during

the month of July 2009. Before the expiry of lease

7

period, respondent issued a notice dated 19.09.2007,

terminating the lease. The petitioner aggrieved by the

notice

of

termination,

filed

a

writ

petition

in

W.P.No.20382/2007. The said writ petition came to

be rejected vide order dated 13.06.2008. The

respondent issued Form-A d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top