IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NOS.58005-58019 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN 1. Shri. Srinivas Babu, S/o Venkatarama Reddy, Age: 50 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
2. Shri. Kondareddy, S/o Hanumantha Reddy, Age: 48 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
3. Smt. Indiramma, W/o Gangaraju, Age: 60 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
4. Smt. Dakshayani, W/o Ravikumar, Age: 42 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
5. Shri. Aleem, S/o Samiulla, Age: 52 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
6. Shri. Haneef, S/o Abdul, Age: 46 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
7. Shri. Waseem Sakram, S/o Syed Nazeem, Age: 45 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
8. Smt. T.G.Pabhavathamma, W/o T.V.Govinda Raju, Age: 45 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
9. Shri. Tabbij Ahammed, S/o Abdul Rasheed, Age: 43 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
10. Shri. Nagesh Babu, S/o Baimaiah Shetty, Age: 40 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
11.Smt. K.T.Sowbhagyamma, W/o B.S.Gopalakrishna, Age: 58 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
12.Shri. Syed Shabeer, S/o Syed Abdul Khadar, Age: 52 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
13.Shri. Narasimaiah, S/o Gudamppa, Age: 45 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
14.Shri. Thimmaraju, S/o Late Krishnappa, Age: 57 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
15.Shri. M.C. Esmayal, S/o Abdul, Age: 57 years, Occ:Business, R/at Dyum Light Circle, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
(By Sri. Muniraju V., Advocate) AND 1. The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru District, Tumakuru, Pin Code – 572 101.
3. The Chief Officer, Madhugiri Town Municipal Council, Town Hall, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin Code – 572 132.
(By Sri. J.M. Umesh Murthy, HCGP for R-1 & R-2) ... Petitioners ... Respondents These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned final notice dated 14.11.2017 issued by R-3 to P-1, as per Annexure-E, etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER All these petitioners, who are lessees under respondent No.3 by virtue of rental/lease agreement dated 02.02.2005 at Annexure-C for a period of 20 years are before this Court for a writ of mandamus to quash the impugned final notice dated 14.11.2017 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexures-E to T.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 conducted a Special General Body meeting on 19.01.2005 for lease of shops through tender cum auction and to fix the deposit amount of tenants. Accordingly, notification dated 22.01.2005 for tender cum open auction was published in Kannada daily newspaper. Thereafter, on 02.02.2005, respondent No.3 executed rental/lease agreement for a period of 20 years in favour of petitioners to carry business in the shops by paying rent regularly and rent shall be enhanced to 10% for 5 years once. On 14.11.2017, respondent No.3 issued first time final notice to the petitioners to vacate the shops within 30 days, failing which, action will be initiated in terms of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974. Hence, the present petitioners are before this Court for the reliefs sought for.
3. Sri. Muniraju .V, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned final notice dated 14.11.2017, issued by respondent No.3 directing the petitioners to vacate from the respective shops within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which, action will be initiated against the petitioners in terms of the Provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 is erroneous and contrary to material on record. He would further contend that when the lease agreement executed by respondent No.3 for a period of 20 years, it will be ended only on 31.01.2025.
Therefore, final notice issued by respondent No.3 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. He would further contend that when the lease is for a period of 20 years, without giving an opportunity, without passing an order and without following the procedure, they cannot be evicted from the respective shops. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by respondent No.3.
4. Sri. J.M. Umesh Murthy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents sought to justify the final notice issued by respondent No.3 and fairly submits that the impugned final notice issued by respondent No.3 dated 14.11.2017, directing the petitioners to vacate the respective shops within 30 days, failing which, action will be taken under the Provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 is in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no immediate threat to the petitioners by the authority under the Act and it has to take action under the provision of Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is an undisputed fact that respondent No.3/Town Municipal Council conducted the Special General Body Meeting on 19.01.2005, for lease of shops through tender cum auction and to fix the deposit amount of tenants. Accordingly, the same was published on 22.01.2005 in Kannada daily newspaper. After following the procedure, on 02.02.2005, respondent No.3 executed rental/lease agreement for a period of 20 years i.e., till 31.01.2025. The impugned notice depicts that in terms of the resolution passed on 11.09.2017 and in terms of directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners have to vacate the premises. Therefore, respondent No.3 issued the final notice on 14.11.2017. The notice reads as under:-
DzÀÝjAzÀ F w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 30 (ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ) ¢ªÀ¸ÀzÉƼÀUÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ CAUÀr ªÀĽUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß RįÁè ¥Àr¹ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨ÉsUÉ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjzÉ.
30 (ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ) ¢ªÀ¸ÀzÉƼÀUÁV CAUÀrAiÀÄ ªÀĽUÉAiÀÄ RįÁè ¥Àr¸ÀzÉà EzÀÝ°è The Karnataka Public Premises eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act 1974 gÀ jÃvÁå PæÀªÀÄ ªÀ»¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ w½AiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ.
6. The final notice issued by respondent No.3 to the petitioners directing them to vacate from the respective shops within 30 days, failing which, they will take action in accordance with the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974. The provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 contemplates the issuance of show-cause notice against the order of eviction and Section 5 of the Act contemplates the eviction of unauthorized occupants. It states that after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, if the competent officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorized occupation, the competent officer may on a date to be fixed for the purpose, make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises. Appeal provision is also provided under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act before the appellate officer, who shall be the District Judge, having jurisdiction over the area.
8. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners that in pursuance of the final notices issued by respondent No.3 the petitioners will be evicted unilaterally cannot be accepted. From the date of final notice, period of 30 days is already over by 13.12.2017. Till today no action is taken. It clearly indicates that respondent No.3 is contemplating to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974. In view of the same, the apprehension of the petitioners that the respondents will take eviction order against them cannot be accepted. The petitioners shall file objections to the impugned final notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
9. The respondents, in particular respondent No.3 shall consider the objections and shall proceed against the petitioners only after following the procedure as contemplated under Section 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 and in accordance with law.
With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM