1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION Nos.47378-379/2014 (GM-PP)

BETWEEN:

SRI. NASARULLA KHAN

S/O WAZIR KHAN

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

SHOP NO.TP 943/22, IDGAH COMPLEX,

TANNERY ROAD (BSA ROAD)

BANGALORE-560045.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.)

AND

1.

EIDGAH-E-JADEED

TANNERY ROAD

BANGALORE-560045

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF

ITS MANAGING COMMITTEE

2.

THE COMPETENT OFFICER

UNDER KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES

(EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS)

ACT 1974,DARUL-AWAQF

NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD

BANGALORE-560052.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TIPPU SULTAN, ADV. FOR R1,

SRI.SYED SUHAIL ALI, ADV. FOR R2.)

2

THESE

WRIT

PETITIONS

ARE

FILED

UNDER

ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.24.9.2010 PASSED

BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-B SHOP NO.TP943/22 AND

ORDER IN M.A.NO.43/2010 DTD.6.8.2014 PASSED BY XLI

ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-D &

DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION

DTD.12.9.2010 VIDE ANNEX-E AND TO EXECUTE FRESH

LEASE AGREEMENT ON FRESH TERMS AND CONDITIONS

WITH RESPECT OF SHOP IN DISPUTE SHOP NO.TP 943/22.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that he is confining his prayers to prayer No.2 i.e.,

seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the

respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated

12.9.2010 vide Annexure-E and to execute fresh lease

agreement on fresh terms and conditions with respect

to shop in dispute.

2.

The petitioner is the tenant of a shop

premises i.e., Shop No.TP 943/22, measuring 11x33

ft. situated at Eidgah Complex, Tannery Road,

3

Bangalore. The respondent No.1 had initiated eviction

proceedings against the petitioner under Section 5(1)

of

the

Karnataka

Public

Premises

(Eviction

of

Unautorised

Occupants)

Act,

1974

before

the

Competent authority. By order dated 24.9.2010, the

competent authority has passed the eviction order.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the

appeal before the XLI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore

in M.A.43/2010. By order dated 6.8.2014, the appeal

filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and order

dated 24.9.2010 passed by the competent authority

has been confirmed. Subsequently, the petitioner has

given representation on 12.9.2010 requesting the

respondent No.1 to execute fresh lease agreement.

Since,

the

respondent

has

not

considered

the

representation given by the petitioner, the petitioner

is before this Court.

4

3.

Since,

the

petitioner

has

given

representation to the respondent No.1 and since the

same has not been considered by the respondent

No.1, it is suffice to direct the respondent No.1 to

consider the representation given by the petitioner. In

addition, the petitioner is also at liberty to give fresh

representation to the respondent No.1 within four

weeks.

4.

Thereafter, the respondent No.1 is directed

to consider the same and pass orders in accordance

with law within four weeks from the date of fresh

representation given by the petitioner.

With the above observation, the writ petitions

are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM