IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.54712-54716/2014 (GM R/C) BETWEEN 1. SRI N S NARAYANA S/O.SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.II-418, ‘VIVEK BOOK STALL’, KUKKE SUBRAHMANYA VILLAGE & POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN. 574238.
2. MR. ABDUL RAHIMAN S/O.LATE MOIDU KUNHI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.II-403, GENERAL MERCHANT, OPP: SUBRAHMANYA-POST OFFICE, KUKKE SUBRAHMANYA, VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN. 574238.
3. SRI MANIKANTA P.M.
S/O LATE MADHAVA NAIR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.II-447, "AKSHAYA BAZAR"
KUKKE SUBRAHMANYA VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN. 574238.
REPT BY HIS G.P.A HOLDER, DINESH A.P.
S/O PUTTANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS KUKKE SUBRAHMANYA VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN. 574238.
4. SRI PAUL PEREIRA S/O ANTONY PEREIRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O AT DOOR NO.II-423, PIRERA GENERAL STORE, KUKKE SUBRAHMANYA VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN. 574238.
5. MR VICTOR D’SOUZA S/O LATE PETER D SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S.S.BEKARY, DOOR NO.II-438 & 439, KUKKE SUBRAHMANYA VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN. 574238. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI DHARMAPAL, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER REVENUE DEPARTMENT (ENDOWMENT) GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT FOR STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, M.M.VARTHA BHAVAN, ALUR VENKAT RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE-560017.
4. THE MANAGING TRUSTEE KUKKE SUBRAHMANYA TEMPLE, KUKKESUBRAHMANYA VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN-574738.
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER & MANAGER (KARYANIRVAHAKA ADHIKARI) KUKKE SUBRAHMANYA TEMPLE, KUKKE SUBRAHMANYA VILLAGE & POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN-574738. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R-1 TO 3 & 5, SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADV. FOR R-5, R-4 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.1.3.2011 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR “PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP”, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Dharmapal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Sri V.Shivareddy, High Court Government Pleader Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 5.
Smt.Vaishali Hegde, Adocate for Respondent No.5 Respondent No.4 served and unrepresented.
These petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the petitioners, the same are heard finally.
2. In these petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have inter alia seek for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 01.03.2011 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioners also seek for quashing of the demand notice dated 6.11.2014 passed by respondent No.5.
3. Facts giving rise to these petitions are briefly stated as under:
That petitioners are the tenants of respondent No.3 in a building situated in Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. The aforesaid shops were taken on rent by petitioners. It is averred in the writ petitions that from time to time, the lease deeds have been executed between the parties. It is also pleaded in the petitions that, lease deed was executed between the petitioners and respondent No.3 for the period from 1.7.2001 till 1.7.2014.
3. Under the aforesaid lease deed, the petitioners were liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of rent to respondent No.3. The State Government passed an order on 1.3.2011 permitting respondent No.3 to renew the rent with effect from 1.7.2009. It appears that on the strength of the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by the State Government, respondent No.3 issued a demand notice dated 6.11.2014 by which the petitioners were asked to pay an amount at the enhanced rate within a period of 10 days failing which, the petitioners were informed that action for their eviction from the premises in question shall be taken.
4. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of respondent no.3 in unilaterally enhancing the rent without the consent of the petitioners and that too with retrospective effect is per se arbitrary and is unreasonable.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.3 has supported the order dated 6.11.2014 and has submitted that aforesaid decision has been taken by respondent no.3. on the strength of the Government order passed on 1.3.2011.
7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is trite law that the relationship between the lessor and the lessee is governed by the terms and conditions of the contract and the terms and conditions of the lease can only be altered by mutual consent. In the instant case, under lease deed executed between the parties, the petitioner was required to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent no.3. The aforesaid rent has been unilaterally enhanced by respondent no.3 on the basis of the Order passed by the State Government on 1.3.2011. The aforesaid course of action is clearly impermissible in law.
8. The rent at the enhanced rate unilaterally in any case cannot be recovered from the petitioners that too with retrospective effect. In the result, the impugned orders dated 1.3.2011 and 6.11.2014 are hereby quashed.
9. Needless to state that respondent no.3 shall be entitled to recover the amount from the petitioners as per the terms and conditions of agreement in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid direction, the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR