IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREK»
DATED THIS THE 22"" any or NOVEMBER, 291::
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MomN5Ham'ANAeorLimxea_ '
wnrr ggmxom NO.35'§9G..QF 2010 {ca/u4..4Rs.z¢;;rr J
BETWEEN :
1. Smt. Yeshodamma
W/0 late M.K. Raju
Aged about 54_years i"
2. MR. '
S/o late iVi._VK..j_Raju » é - V
Aged _a--bo.u1:'3_6 yeyarrs ' "
3. Smt. M.R.' s.=m-iir'r.e:
D/o lateVM.K. 'Raj'uf~. V.
Aged abouut%3v3 years = .
.._4. Sn<i:{t.'VM~.R. Kévaxfia _
'Dr'-0 late M._K. Rajij "" "
' VrVA»gVed..vab.out''3Q years
S--,.{_o late Raju
Aged about 28 years
.. AA A!l_ar e residing at No.25
* Eshwara Devasthana Beedi
Old Town, Mandya City
tx)
Rep by their GPA., hoider
Ramakrishna
S/o Kagegowda
Residing at l\Eo.1844
7"' Cross, Subhash Nagar
Mandya City, Mandya. ..Pet1t1o'n_er:»j-ii
(By Sri H.C. Shivaramu, Adv.,)
AND :
1. The Secretary
to Government of Karnataka V
Department of RevenLje.V_(Mu2a"'ra':)"
M.S. Bending " I 5 w '
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangaiore-560001. '
2. The DeDu.t\~'~
Mandya Eiistr_.i"ctp, _ "
3. The av'-éfisiieciazéiir _& fitazrjai.ofrice'f"'"
Mandya -D'istri'<:i:',f- !~a4'and'yTa'.---« ._ ' -
4. The Cor'nmissio'ne'i' »--
Offiice of theCharitx/=_Co'ahmissioner
C.h:ama~rajpet',"Bangalore--S6O 018. ..Respondents
(By--.S__ri $a.nga'mesh G. Patii, AGA.,)
H 2 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the.__Cons_titut'io0n of India, praying to quash the order dated
2-'-L.1'1.2009'~p'assed by the first respondent in his order in so
Hfar as "fixing the lease amount from 1.1.1991 to 2004 and
"._Va;iso__ from 1.42004 to 31.3.2010 and subsequent years at
V' * AI1ne§g<ure~J .
-3-
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing,
this day the Court made the fo11ow1'r1g:-- I
ORDER
Learned Government Advo.cate_is.’_’ to
take notice for respondents. V
Heard.
2. Petitioners areat-hoe’i’.i’e’§;fal.:.revp:re’S_entatives of
late M.K.Raj’t12_.: premises
described ‘Writ petition. The
said Temple, Mandya
Taluk. “i”hey arewfiquashing of the order at
Ann,e§$5ore~J, “‘d.ated At 24.11.2009, by which the
peti»tioners__directed to pay the rents at the rate of
for the land in possession of the
‘v._’petit’ion:’e.rs.” By the very order, the petitioners are
A r~.if”dAAir:e”cted to pay goodwill of ?300/~ per sq.ft. for the
h property in possession of the petitioners. The order
\~*”7
E4″
impugned is made retrospectively effective, i.e., from
1.1.1991. The petitioners have also sought
direction to the first respondent to cons.i’tii«er’_:’y”theT
representation dated
Annexures-P, P1, P2, P3 and
3. Sri H.C.Shivaramu, the
petitioners submits thatthe is iiiegai,
inasmuch as to pay
the rents with 1.1.1991;
that the paid the amount
reiatii\g«ap,,,txo the impugned order.
Howejvery, h.a’.veA’*.fiied representations before the
avfirst”‘res’pon’dent tovfreduce the monthly rent from $2/~
4.:””;.Writ petition is opposed by the learned
yV”:V’§3ov.e.rnment Advocate appearing on behaif of the
if”‘*.:_yv_r_éspondents by inter alia contending that the
M
-5-
impugned order is just and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the petiti.-o~njer.s~.._
have not paid the amount since 1991.
S. The impugned order
respondent has fixed the re’nt«-at
with 5% enhancement per to
31.3.2004. The very that the rent at
the rate of $2′./~.f;pe_r sgg. “ftg.ik1[.is1g_n.xggdsrran1s1.4.2oo4 to
31.10.2010.” is passed on
24.11.20OV9′.”i’t the impugned order
is made!’ i.e., w.e.f.
1.1.1.991. enhancement of rent with
effe'”ct’,’v cannot be sustained. The
A1’enh’an1cern.enti~-rent can be given to prospective effect
and”«not_”retrospective effect. If the rent is enhanced
retrospective effect, the same wouid create
-1 Zh-ardship to the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned
Y’
-5-
order in so far as it directs the petitioners to pay the
enhanced rent from 1.1.1991 to 24.11.2009 (dajtei-o_f~..vv
the impugned order) is bad in the eye of law…_”::–~
5. From the impugned order dated 1..42E’l{Jg:_’.9V«.i…b.V’.’
it is clear that the rent fixed’~.loy
?2/– per sq. ft. as on the date___of».:t_r;e_vimipugnjediforder.
The enclosure to Anneiuzre.j3f–.’A:.issiiEd’~..by the first
respondent that the
petitioners .to:_;–p:a’yV__a”_ of ?11,760/- per
month :toyy’a’rd:s_re:iiVt; apga-rlt’frorn”‘§?1,64,093/- towards
goodwill.» V’As the goodwill amount is
already. paid” b:y’tl?:eA”pe’t’itioners. Now the dispute is
‘iioniy”~JQit»h:s regard tolllinonthly rents.
the petitioners and three similarly
3…_’po«ndent No.1 is on the higher side, they made
_re§presentations as per Annexures-P, P1, P2, P3 and Q
i/5
-7-
praying for reduction of rent. Such representation will
have to be considered by the first respondents-«.i4n’~.._
r.” ”
I
accordance with law keeping in mind
situation. Thus, this Court does not
anything to that aspect of the
Till such consideration, the petei:t’i’o.ners wiltV.ha.vezvtVo”‘p’ay
the rents fixed by fiirsti’he-:respondent” as per
Annexure-J, w.e.f. 24. _.~.,.i,2’ifi;.¢_cV§3.!rding|y, the
following
*’§i.;ord’e.r”–.’ “a’t”-~~-‘ifiinnexure-J, dated
24.11.2009. ined?itrairyes.yi:it-.. directs the petitioners to
pay the enh’anV_ceVd.’ren.t from 1.1.1991 stands quashed.
I-isf”TheV”it~–irnp’iugned ord”er’Vshouid be construed as having
the first respondent directing the
petitione’rs.siA.t’of pay enhanced rent at ?’2/– per sq. ft.
M f f i e.r. i2-4.1 1.2009.
M
-3″
The representations fiied by the petitioners as
per Annexures-P, P1, P2, P3 and Q shaii be consi_4d».ejreed-..V
by the first respondent in accordance with
on fact situation, as early as possibie i’ate_r
than the outer limit of three
receipt of this order.
Writ petition is d:sp’osea;ar éscgjtjridtingiy.
*ck/ r1Ak–..