IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1173 OF 2016 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. U. V. NARASIMHAMURTHY SON OF THE LATE VARDARAJA IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS PROPRIETOR, PADMA IYENGARS BAKERY SHOP NO.1 DEVARAJ URS SHOPPING COMPLEX TSB CIRCLE (GOPI CIRCLE) NEHRU ROAD, SHIMOGA - 577 201.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. JANARDHANA. G, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA MAHANAGARA PALIKE SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. LAXMINARAYANA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.22346 OF 2015 DATED 25/04/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.22346 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge in disposing of the writ petition and issuing various directions, the writ petitioner is before this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner being similar to the other connected writ petitions, the learned Single Judge disposed off all the writ petitions by a common order. The plea of the petitioner was that even though the lease of the premises has expired, the respondent - Corporation issued a notice enhancing the monthly rent with retrospective effect and subject to constant revision every three years. The same was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge on the contrary went beyond the pleadings and passed an erroneous order. That the learned Single Judge having quashed the demand notice directed the Corporation to notify the premises for allotment and after following the general and acceptable methods, allot the said premises to eligible persons keeping in mind the reservations in favour of women, handicapped persons, SC/ST and weaker sections of the society. That reconsideration of arrears of rent by the petitioners shall be subject to the payment of 50% of the demand made in the impugned demand notice within a period of four weeks, if not, such of those cases are not to be reconsidered. Therefore, he pleads that his contention that the rent could not have been enhanced with retrospective effect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal requires to be allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
3. The same is disputed by the learned counsels for the respondents. They firstly contend that none of the contentions require to be considered. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the learned Single Judge, Writ Appeal Nos.1271-1272 of 2016 and connected petitions were filed by the various writ petitioners. The Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 20.6.2016, passed in W.A. Nos.1271 – 1272 of 2016 and connected petitions, disposed off all the appeals by issuing various directions including that the said order shall not prevent the respondent - Corporation to initiate proceedings for enhancement of rent in accordance with law.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that appropriate interference is called for. The question of enhancing the rent with retrospective effect or otherwise, is not a question that arises for consideration herein. Even though the said contention is being advanced, the primary fact would indicate that the lease executed in favour of the appellant has since expired, and hence they have no authority to continue in the premises after expiry of the lease. Notwithstanding the same, since the rents have also not been paid, the impugned notice before the learned Single Judge was issued seeking rent for the previous period. The question of even issuing such a demand notice may not be appropriate in law.
5. The State has undertaken a policy that all the State properties require to be publicly auctioned. A Government notification has also been issued in this regard. The Government order bearing No.£ÀCE 509 fEJ¯ï 2014 dated 14.08.2015 would make it clear that wherever lease period has expired, the properties belonging to local authorities shall be auctioned by paper publication by following the provisions of Karnataka Transparency Act, 2000. That a number of petitions were disposed off upholding the Government notification. That leases would be prohibited. That even the existing leases would stand terminated by calling for a public auction of the premises in question. The same is done with an intention to obtain highest revenue to the State from the public properties. The said fact is not disputed to by either of the parties. Therefore, the question of enhancing the rent would not save the petitioners. The policy decision taken by the State and consequential Government orders issued would have to be complied with.
6. The said fact is not disputed to by either of the parties. Under these circumstances, and in view of the specific Government notification holding that all public properties require to be auctioned, we do not find it appropriate that such contention only with regard to enhancement of retrospective rent requires to be considered. Hence, the appeal requires to be allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside. The writ petition is dismissed.
However, liberty is granted to the respondents to participate in the public auction in accordance with law. Furthermore, until and unless a new bidder is identified, the appellant shall be permitted to continue in the premises on payment of the prevailing rent and on payment of all arrears of rent.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA