IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
THE HONBLE MR. -JUSTICE ATsHOK¢BT.;
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER».
BEFORE
WRIT PETITION NOS.29365-318?' %20Os} [LB;.R%1:g1O}% "
BETWEEN
1
P.PU'I'I'ARAJU T. .
S/O PUTTASWAMYO *
AGED ABOUT 46 jy
R/O TRIV:;N1NAGAR"V.; _ -
T.NARA51PT;pA TALLIEK" _
'V .
MYSORED1sTR1cf1'*--.'jj '
N'.MAiIAL)EVAf ' .
-
AGEI) ABO U«T'~35' YEARS
R/O._IN'DIRP~.-- COLONY.
T.NARA.S1PURA TOWN
; '1'.NARAS'IPURA TALUK
'~'e.1v1§(sO_R1a: DISTRICT
.. V MARINAIKA
AGED' ABOUT 41 YEARS
'. '-«R/O --NAYAi{ARA BEEDI
A T. NARASIPURA TOWN
NARASEPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT
' TB.PUTTARAJU
S/O BASAVANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O NANJUNGUD ROAD
T. NARASEPURA
MYSOREJ DESTRECT
RAMARAJ URS
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O INDIRA COLONY
TNARASIPURA
MYSORE DISTRICT
SAKAMMA
C /O APPALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
VINAYAKA COLONY
TNARASIPURA
MY SORE DISTRICT
SANJEEVARAJE URS
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS I
R/O INDIRA COLONY
TNARASIPURA V _ 5
MYSORE DISTRICT. --
v.MAOAPPA. - if
S/O LATE 'XZENKA'i'ALM:i
AGED A1BOiJ'T_5]_ YEARS ;.
._
MYSORE D_ISTP.IC"1'__«_ ~ .
D.PANDURA:\';--GA=_sE'£41Y
4 ; AGED ABOUT' 45 "YEARS
._ ' <R_/._Q REDDY 'COLONY
T. NARAs_1PURA
I " » .';f)1sTRIcT
10%
Ac;ED.ABOU'1' 41 YEARS
VINAYAKA COLONY
'I'.N.ARASIPURA
" * AMYSORE DISTRICT
YSHARADAMMA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O INDIRA COLONY
TNARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT
12
13
14
15
I6
KULLA @ {KRISHNA}
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O INDIRA COLONY
TNARASIPURA
MYSORE DISTRICT
NINGANNA J _
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ' "
R/O VINAYAKA COLONY
T. NARASIPURA TALUK V
MYSORE DISTRICT *
SHASI-IIKALA
w/O PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT SSYEARS A .
R/O SRIRAMPURA' BEEDI
TNARASIPURA I
MYSORE I)I:'f«.TRICT
'
AGED _ABO_I.IT 40 YEARS"
HEII4fiV}% R.A. *E_12ED_I' ' I
NARASVIPURA TALUK
MYSORE D?53_'R,1.C"I*.__ --. ' '
m,YI~MwA
AGED "ABOU'I.'- 40*_YEARS
_; R/O INDIRA. COLONY
.f__'°T.;NAI?ASIPURA"TALUK
IVIYSORB2._ DISTRICT
_
W/O' SEIF\/ASWAl\/IY
A AGEDABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O T. NARASIPURA TOWN & TALUK
I _ MIISORE DISTRICT
. SASAVARAJU
S/O LATE APPAIAH SETTY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O TRIVENINAGAR
TNARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTR!CT
19 SCIRISI-«I
S/O LATE SIDDANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
No.52.-3, SRERAMPURA BEEDHI
TNARASIPURA TOWN 8: TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT
20 SWAMY
S/O CHINNASWAMI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS v ~
R/O SRIRAMAPURA EEEDHI, NO_.522 " *
TNARASIPURA TOWN 3: ' --
MYSORE DISTRICT ' _
21 KUMAR ._
S/O KALA NAIAKA' 'I
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS;_ .,
NARAYANAi3EEI§IHI"'~« _
T. NARASIIJ'IIIIt~:A TC)WN''TALUK'-- "
MYSORI53IDISiffRICT._4_ I' » PETITIONERS
.. R ADv., I
AND: I I I I I
CHIEF OFFICER .
TOWN _RANC'IIA&'IAf1*I»I O_FF'1CE
T.NA_RASIPURA V
* _MY-SORE.AD}ISTRICT"' ---- RESPONDENT
' A'; . B NARAYANA, ADV., FOR C/R)
TIRIESE WRIT PETITONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 ANDj_227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TOCIQUASH THE RESOLUTION DATED 11.9.09, PASSED BY
"R1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE--D AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
"PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
' THE ROLLOWINO:
ORDER
The petitioners have called into quest,iVonfl”.th.e
resolution, dated 11.9.2009 (.Annexure-D}
respondent.
2. The facts of the ‘case in 0hriefiV’VarLgu.thVat.’3 the
petitioners are the lessees _:sv:eAvevi?a1 shop
units in the commercial’0–.co%n’ip0i’e§§’:.:be,1onging to the
respondent. Finding” in a
dilapidated resolved to
” :’f:’he,:iresp0ndent made the
petitioners “shop units assuring that they
would be V’i*e4–acco’inn1odat.ed on the reconstruction of the
shopping corrip1ev,~:,_ _____ “In this regard, the respondent has
an agreement, dated 14.3.2005
{2iri_th the petitioners and twelve other
simiiarlfplaced occupants of the shop units. On the
“..js*.co1n’p1Aeti’on of the reconstruction, the petitioners
agitated their right of re–entry. On the respondent
“showing inaction in the matter, they filed
W.P.Nos.2513525157/2009, which were disposed of by
figfiiei;
6
this Court. by its order, dated 25.8.2009 directing the
respondent to consider the cases of the petiti4o_n:ergs~.V’in
accordance with law.
3. The respondent, Vide its resoiuitioniii dated -. r
11.9.2009 {Annexure«~D] decided
in the new shopping complex Vby’°hold;ing_:
auction. The resolution more funds
are required for tidirig..V:’o\_rge’rg difficulties of
the respondents It earlier lease
agreement the petitioners
are not resolution, which is being
assailed’ Hudlamane, the learned
counsei*.for the petitioners.
».4°5~r:i:’_j..Hegde I-Iudlamane submits that the
petitione~rs’£’..–have voluntarily vacated the shop units
based the agreement entered into between the
–,.re–spuondent and the petitioners and others. He further
…_submits that the said agreement is not against any
public policy and is not opposed to law. He brings to
my notice that the agreement provides for the fixing of
fifiiri
7
the necessary rent and the tax. He further su.bmit_s___ that
the petitioners are also willing and ready to
reasonably enhanced rent.
5. The learned counsel ifeliescoin th’e._dec1sioh
this Court in the case___
SUBHANRAO NALAWADE V; “l HASANALI
MAKANI AND oTH1a1.ij:3,g ._AIR 1992 so
1780. He read out the-pp-ortion pg-15in: Head Note [ ),
which is ext_r£1cte§it’hereini:~e1o\§J: -if . l
“In pi.::rs-uance” compromise reached
‘ landlord the possession of
over to the landlord on
the enrpressvlstipulations that on the construction of
5 the new the tenant would get an identical
A §heréfn;” “”” The fresh construction was
.iVcorry:2leted __but instead of honouring the pledge
landlord in the form of an
“un.dert’alang” he inducted third persons therein
up andg_did not make any ojfer to the tenant or after
V * r 4_ death to his heir until the matter reached the
V’ v ..nHigh Court on the second occasion and the writ
petitions filed by third parties were being argued
after the lapse of about 24 years. In the
circumstances there can be no conceivable reason
to condemn the tenant for her insistence for the
£3}-A
benefits under the consent decree or for any
sympathy with the landlord or the third
inducted by landlord. The landlord mast be A’
liable for making his undertaking good as:
for any suitable compensaiiontfor the
of more than two decades
6. Sri H.B.Narayana.,:VV:”‘the
appearing for the . that the
relationship between petitioners
is that of 1icei1’s:orI”a11li._ have no
vested of the shop units.
He at AnneXure–A is
oPDOsecl= ‘Rule 39 of the Karnataka
Municipalities[Gnidance of Officers, Grant of Copies
‘l V. °and’=I\llié-scellvaneousWlllrovisions} Rules 1966 (‘1966 Rules’
“the_l~shop units cannot be leased without
holclillg auction. The provisions of Rule 39 of
Flules are extracted hereinbel0w:–
“39. Procedure in respect of lease. sale
or auction:- Save as otherwise provided in the Act”
or rules, when the Municipal Council proposes to
lease. sell or auction any moveable or immovable
Qifili;
property, it shaii give notice of such lease, sale or
auction by« VV
{U affixing copies thereof on the noiice..bootfid:”‘ij* ”
Of the Offices Of the Municiptll Councflg’ V ” 3
(ii) exhibiting copies ther’eoj”i.n, an
reading rooms and places by V
M an icipai Council ii i”o__ be conspicuoiis A._:w.itHhVin3
the Municipality; ‘V b V’ ‘V V’ 1
(iii) publication inia neiospaper having
wide circulation iuiihin 1ihe«.M”u.n~ic_ipaiity;
(iv) “by.:beai:–of é:ir’iim’o:::ciicu£siiion of notice in
K V
7} : ‘SriV’V’Na1fa3rai1.a””submits that this Rule is
c0InpIimef1t_4aI3.r Vb’to4VK_Sec.Iiion 72 of the Karnataka
Mu_n:icip_aliiiesb “‘£A’;<..'..fC,,__..v 1964, which deals with the
the Municipal Council to lease, sell and
contract bits? 'pfoperties.
A. L The learned counsel has also relied on the
decisions of this Court in the case of SHABEER AHMED
° TOWN MUNICIPALITY, BANTWALA AND ANOTHER
passed on 15.7.2008 in W.P.No.3714/2008 (LB-RES),
§§§”!:
10
and of MORAN P. SONU V. STATE OF
AND OTHERS, reported in 1992(2) Kar.L.J. 245i4{ois;<}.f–teg'
9. The decision in the case of b
(supra) has no application for the facts)of_tliis–.case,_llZn
the said case, Shabeer himself haduV_pa,rtic:pla;iéa_’m f;t;1fie f,
earlier public auction. In the caseititnjis nobody’s
case that the petitionei’_sfhaxie e_oine_’through the auction
route. _ ‘
10. VMOHAN P. SONU v.
STATI;’f “&”‘oTHERs, reported in
1 992(2) — .’ marginal land measuring
5′ XV50′ soidA”vto””‘the adjoining owner without
requirements of public law.
4lthe’_j.purchaser in the case of Mohan Sonu
(supra) not in possession of the marginal lands
“before Municipality soid it.
“All. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that
” petitioners are smaliwtimers and that they have been
in possession of the shop units for a long period of 20
years from 1985 to 2005. Whether they should have
§i§%i.
1.1
been given the shop units in 1985 without observing the
requirement of public law is not the issue beforel”ni’e,g:””,It
is not known why the respondent did not
public auction for allotting the-“”sh–op
Having not chosen to do so, the re~sp’o_nxdent’has ~_
the settled position of the “for it
12. Further, exercised the
option of term1’r.1atir1g:.t~he_:l’eas¢j.,9r.l.Iicence, as the case
may be. that, then the
petitioners It V tenants holding over
liable belease period is over or the
tenancyagrgeernentlllhasli it is always open to the
respondent ei’th._er to: institute the suits against the
petitioners-.o1=._to evict them taking recourse to the
proV*ision’:ff’_”Contained in Public Premises (Eviction of
V -V Unaut.horised Occupants) Act, 1974.
it * When the building had to be reconstructed in
.,2_0lO5, the respondent persuaded the petitioners to
“llvacate the shop units with the assurance that they
would be rewaccommodated in the reconstructed
fifiii.
12
building. I am afraid, the respondent cannot resile___from
the assurance. The petitioners cannot be pena1is.e_d.V’i”or
acting on the assurance given by the V’
Having aroused their legitimate»’exp.ectatiofi=thatthey.’
would get the re–entry in the
building, the respondent is yjustiliied’ in jnov-Jwturlning it
around and saying that the assu’i”ancellgive-ii by the
respondent is not ‘vagreeinent is
contrary to lawn; “_~_
14. r;easlon”V respondent in the
resolution that’.th,e”relsplondent has to auction the shop
units to enable itself over the financial difficuities
is ncifilground xfor,lgoin_g back on the assurance held out
‘Apetvitioners. Further, the agreement itself
thelllfixation of proper rent and property tax.
‘V Theta petitioners have also shown their bonafides by
..agreeing to pay the reasonably enhanced rents. It is for
respondent and the petitioners to negotiate and
it “arrive at upper revision of the rate of rent and the tax.
§fi§~§.
13
15. The position taken by the resp0ndent__.in its
statement of objections that the petitioners may
approach the Civil Court and seek the
unfortunate, to say the least-;””Thpe its
instrurnentaiities have to act fairijg and”
They have to be model land or ‘ease it
may be.
16. For ailvthei hold that the impugned I quash it. 1 direct the case of the
petitioners the shop units in the letter
and 14.3.2005 (AnneXure–
A). ,,.f%Ifherr.1ibertyV.is:HeXpress1y reserved to the respondent
rate of rent and the property tax Within
of its perception of What is reasonable
‘V and.uaft’er negotiating with the petitioners. Liberty is
reserved to the respondent to terminate the
‘ 1Ai’een’ee/ lease, if it is otherwise open to the respondent to
so and for the right and valid reasons. If the
respondent exercises these liberties, then the
figfi
I4
respondent is obliged to hold the public auction and
thereafter allot the shop units. On the expiry vcfthe
lease period or termination of licence, if the-:’pi§ib.Iic
auction is to be held, it is also open to the petiti.onet’sA
take part in the same.
193 These petitions are
order as to costs.