IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE Between :
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA Writ Petition No.24468/2017 (GM-PP) Dr. Karnam Archana W/o Dr.Karnam Sudheer, D/o S.Krishnama Naidu, Aged about 35 years, R/at No.11/2-22, Ramamandir Road, Kaverinagara, Banashankari III Stage, Katriguppa, Bangalore-560 085, Represented by her GPA Hoslder Mr.S.Krishnama Naidu S/o S.Gurappa Naidu, Aged about 63 years, R/at No.11/2-22, Ramamandir Road, Kaverinagara, Banashankari III Stage, Katriguppa, Bangalore-560 085. .. Petitioner ( By Sri Sharat Gowda G. B., Advocate ) And :
1. Bangalore Development Authority, Represented by its Commissioner, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore-560 020.
2. The Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore-560 020. .. Respondents ( By Sri M.N.Sudev Hegde, Advocate ) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to modify the order dated 1.6.2017 passed by the LXIII Addl.City Civil Judge, at Bangalore, in MA.No.9/2017 at Annexure-A, by granting an ex-parte order of stay, staying the operation and execution of the order dated 5.5.2017, issued by the R-2 at Annexure-B.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER Though IA.1/2017 is listed for consideration, since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the petition itself is taken for consideration and disposed of by this order.
2. The petitioner herein is before this Court in this petition claiming to be aggrieved by the order passed by the lower Appellate Court in M.A.No.9/2017. The respondents having initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (`the Act’ for short), the competent authority has passed the order of eviction dated 5.5.2017. The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved, is before the lower Appellate Court in the Appeal filed under Section 10 of the Act. The statutory remedy available to the petitioner by way of Appeal having been availed, the petitioner had also sought for stay of execution of the order impugned in the said Appeal. Since the Court below had rejected such request, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. In a matter of the present nature, when it is seen that the petitioner has the statutory remedy of appeal and the contentions as put forth are to be considered by the Appellate Judge, if in the meanwhile, the eviction order is enforced, certainly the petitioner would be prejudiced. It is in that view, this Court through an interim order, had protected the possession and since the Appeal itself is to be disposed of by the lower Appellate Judge, neither this petition or vacating the stay order would serve the ends of justice. Therefore, the appropriate course would be to continue the interim order granted herein to enure to the benefit of the petitioner till the Appeal in M.A.No.9/2017 is disposed of by the lower Appellate Judge. All contentions on merits are kept open to be urged therein. The lower Appellate Judge may make endevour to dispose of the appeal itself as expeditiously as possible. Pending consideration of the appeal, the petitioner shall also not create any third party rights or alter the position existing as on today.
In terms of the above, the Petition and Application stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *bk/-