- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

WRIT PETITION No.9449/2008 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.

SMT. K.SHARADA BHAT,

W/O. LATE K GOOPALAKRISHNA BHAT,

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

2.

SMT. VEENA,

D/O. LATE SRI K. GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT,

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

3.

SRI K. SHRISH BHAT,

S/O. LATE K GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

4.

SRI K SRIPATI BHAT,

S/O. LATE K GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERSONS ARE ALL ARE

RESIDING AT BUS STAND ROAD,

HALIYAL - 581 329, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI R.V.ITAGI, SRI A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.

STATE

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,

- 2 -

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,

VISHVESHWARA TOWERS,

OPPOSITE TO G.P.O. & COFFEE BOARD,

BANGALORE - 560001.

2.

PATTANA PANCHAYATH,

HALIAYL - 581 329,

DULY REP BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAVI V.HOSAMANI, A.G.A. FOR R.1,

SRI PRAKASH B.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE ORDER PASSED IN MA NO.3/2000 AND MA NO.4/2000

DATED 5/4/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE,

KARWAR, UK, AT ANNEXURE-T, ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

DELIVERED

THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioners have called into question the second

respondent’s order dated 16/5/2010 (Annexure-S) and the

order dated 6/4/2008 (Annexure-T) passed by the District

Judge, Uttara Kannada in Misc.Appeal Nos.3/2000 and

4/2000. The District Judge confirms the second respondent’s

order to vacate the premises in question within 45 days.

- 3 -

2. Sri R.V.Itagi, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the competent authority’s order is passed in

violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that

the petitioners were not even given clear two weeks’ time to

resist the eviction proceedings. The notice dated 24/4/2000

is received by the petitioners around 30/4/2000 and that the

order of eviction is passed on 16/5/2000. He complains of

lack of opportunities.

3. He submits that the lease agreements, dated

13/3/1967 and 27/10/1993 are subsisting. There is no

termination of the lease at all. He submits that there is no

clause in the said two lease agreements to the effect that if

the lessee commits any default, the lease arrangement would

automatically stand terminated. Therefore, it is not

permissible for the respondents to resort to the initiation of

the proceedings under the Karnataka Public Premises

(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974.

- 4 -

4. As the petitioners are in lawful possession of the

properties in question, they cannot be treated as the

unauthorized occupants. He submits that the respondents

have to first determine the lease and thereafter secure the

vacant possession of the premises, if it is otherwise open to

them to do so in law. In any case, the same has to be only by

filing a suit, so contends the learned counsel.

5. He submits that the municipality has sanctioned the

building plan in favour of the petitioner No.4 in respect of the

site measuring 30 X 40 ft, as is evident from the

municipality’s order dated 6/9/1995 (Annexure-D). As the

construction on the site has taken place with the prior

approval of the municipality, the respondent No.4 cannot be

treated as the unauthorized occupant.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on

the Apex Court’s judgement in the case of EXPRESS

NEWSPAPERS PVT. AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

- 5 -

AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1986 SC 872. Para 87 read

out by him is extracted:

“The Express Buildings constructed by Express

Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. with the sanction of the lessor

i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of Works & Housing

on plots 8. 9 and 10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg

demised on perpetual lease by registered lease-deed

dated March 17, 1958 can, by no process of

reasoning, be regarded as public premises belonging