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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.