IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.18275 OF 2013 (GM-KSSIDC) BETWEEN:
JOSEPH LAZARUS S/O LATE E.P. LAZARUS AGED 55 YEARS R/AT MILD RED JANGAMARA BETTU MUDUTHONSE VILLAGE KALYANPURA, UDUPI TALUK.
(BY SRI. S.N. BHAT, ADV.,) AND:
… PETITIONER 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.
2. KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REGD. OFFICE A.O. BUILDING INDUSTRIAL ESTATE RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 10.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 SRI. PUTHIGE R. RAMESH, ADV., FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 2.5.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO EXECUTE ABSOLUTE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE SHED AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.S.N.Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sri.Puthige R. Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of demand notice dated 02.05.2012 made by respondent No.2, by which a sum of Rs.3,36,747/- has been demanded from the petitioner on account of arrears of rent, which includes interest as well as service charges. Petitioner also seeks for a direction to the respondent No.2 to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that on 24.08.1984, respondent No.2 has entered into a Lease Agreement with the petitioner. Respondent No.2 issued a Demand Notice, by which the petitioner was asked to pay a sum of Rs.3,36,747/-, which includes the amount of arrears of rent, penalty, interest, service tax and service charges. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the liability of the petitioner has been determined behind his back without furnishing the details as well as the basis on which the aforesaid amount has been computed. It is further submitted that in the Demand Notice, the period for which the amount towards arrears of rent is sought is not been indicated.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly did not dispute the aforesaid submission to the extent that the Demand Notice contained in Annexure-F dated 02.05.2012 does not contain the details of the period for which the petitioner is said to be in arrears of rent.
6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides.
7. It is a common ground that no basis has been disclosed to the petitioner on the basis of which, the amount of arrears of rent has been computed, which is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The period for which the petitioner is said to be in arrears of rent also has not been disclosed. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, it is quashed.
8. A fresh notice be issued to the petitioner indicating the break-up as well as the basis in respect of the amount due and payable by the petitioner. The respondents shall determine the liability of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-