Sri K C Shantharam vs Competant Officer on 27 October, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAXA AT BANGALORE

DATED mxs THE 27"" my OF OCTOBER 

BEFORE :

THE I~!ON'B!.E MRJUSTICE MOHAN SI-!AN17.A.lV\ul_:@=.G(}Ol::3:DARE"  

wnzrr PETITIQN NQ.§§ 74.5 gzgig {Q M459 2-    " _ 

Bggwggn :

K.cShantharam

S/o K.N.Srinivasashetty 

Aged about 60 years, ' '

No.6, HAS Compiex,

B.M.Road,

Kunigai, ~ _ I   -  '

Tlimkul' Di5t"iCt:'-'        Petitioner

( By Sri Kaséenfiusoiafisssnjaskifiacisxocsate )
Aug :

1. competaritTnoffnceff' ,\  
Darul AWAKE'? I 
No.5; Cunningham Road,

 .  Ba'n:gai.e¢re-560  -

AVA2'. ;.H'a--za r*a_t"n :He ke.em,

 S_hakv.Comp|fex,v~'
'-Managed '."byjCentral
Mazlise.e=-shora
By its Secretary,

  i(uniga_l_,"
" *T:..-mkur Distnct. .. Respondents

‘By: Sri R.B.Sadashivappa, Advocate for C/R–2 )

This Writ Petition is filed under Articfes 226 8~.g'”.’227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the .iirr1p«u_gned
order passed by the learned District & Session.s4’3.ud-gje “En

M.A.No.7/2009 dated 17.8.2010 produced a_t’i..An’ne§cure«.Ci-,’

dismissing the appeai and confirming the orderpassied bythe

learned 15′ respondent in case datedgsV2O.1..§*.O’O9prolduvced–at’»

Ahnexure-B.

This Writ Petition coming onfor–,_preiim.’i_riary

this day, the Court made the fo_iio_wing’:v.

9___.._R

Petitioner was a The
lease was termivnatged the ground that
the petitioner’ .p;,§yi’;%.: ‘regularly. Thereafter,
proceedi~r1g’s’ provisions of Section 5
of Karnaitaka (Eviction of unauthorised

Occupants) ‘Act,”19?.4y’for~~*evicting the petitioner before the

*=competent’:authority;——-~The competent authority after hearing,

,.alioiweid_ ‘_pe:tit.ion fiied by the respondents herein and

coh’seq’uen.tiyle?directed the petitioner to vacate the premises

within ’45fid;ays. The said order was called in question before

then_iDl’istrict Court in Misceflaneous Appeal No.7/2009. The

appeal aiso came to be dismissed by the order dated

V’

17.8.2010 vide Annexure–‘C’ to the writ petition. Both the

orders are called in question in this petition.

2. Sri Kaleemuiia Shariff, learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that f:iAio”‘y”e.a”i*s

granted to the petitioner to vacate the ” A’ V

The said submission is oppose-d»_ by.”itherresigbondents.
The respondents submiVt*’«._tEa_t ‘t_hes.j_’p’eti–tien’er may be granted

time up to six months to_v–acat~e the,pi”e’mi:s’es.’.

3. business of hiring
Shamiya.na;tvetVc’;j, ‘foir’§fi.inct.i,ons. éT’h’e’premise$in question is on
the main”.ro’ac_j ofi(:.i’n..igaE.._.’i’ttJ,t’is brought to the notice of the

Court by the-4..Eevarnedhcounsel for the petitioner that the

.-v..aVrreaV_rs’i:.of_:’reV_nts A’a’ie…..d.eposited by the petitioner. Having

‘7r_e’gaVrd–..to~v._th’e;’t.otality of the facts and circumstances, and as

no “o.ti*.ierV’g’rojf.iVr*;ds are urgedby the petitioner, in my

‘ ‘Consideredt.:_op4inion, interest of justice wiii be met if the

‘pjetiAtion.er granted time to vacate the premises till the end

_ of i”uneM2O11.

i”

Accordingty, writ petition is dismissed, grantirig time

to the petitioner to vacate the premises tili the er_;v_c;ii_:0f J.ig_p__e

time.

*bk/

2011, subject to depositing the rents every