Sri Madaraje Urs vs Karnataka State Road Transport … on 17 December, 2008

.’ Kfiaviahankar for Sri Ashok Haranahalli 85 Assta,

Advocate. )

Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the
C.P.(3. against the judficnt and decree dated 4.12.2008
passed in R.A.No. 32/2007 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge

2

(Sr. £331.), Mysore, allowing the appeal and setting aside the
judgment and decree dated 14.12.2006 passed in 0.S.No.
737/2005 on the file of the Pt}. I Civil Judge {Jr.E)11.),

Mysore.

This appeai coming on for admission -J V.

court delivered the following :

J U D G M *. -1′ 7

Heard both sides

itseif, this appeal is being disufiosedof of the
submissions made ‘epunsel for the

Palms

2. trial court is the apmliant

herein _Vtt;i)11gh At.1_’te’7st1it filed by him for grant of

V’ against the respondents herein

e’ with an observation that the plaintifi’

fiom the suit premises in accordance

the due process of law, an appeal by the

T:.”t:espt§:1dent~KSRTC, the lower appellate court: set aside

trial eour1:’s judment by allowing the said appeal

‘ and granted one Week time finm the date of its order to

the plaintifi’ to hand over vacant suit premises. It is this

y

_ I

3
judment of the iower appellate court that has prompted

the plaintifi’ to prefer thi$ second appeal.

3. The parties do not dispute the fact of

carrying on the business of juice 9

premises. At the same time, the

also undertaken the work V»of4__.den’u:;lf1’si1i11gV»t:V’1§ V L.

buss Stand to put up a new and, in
this connection, .A by the
Government and has been

relcastki of central share
and of funds for the

implementafiofx ‘of”t1iie {L;eni1’ally Sponsored Scheme of

V. S11b =-;1«\a/Eié§sioi3.&’ on Transport under Jawaharlal

‘i.;V\:l”a:t;it§IV?;’;1l:’_i~Urban Reneweal Mission. The KSRTC

the proposed plan before the courts

“b;2IVow.” is also not in dispute that the demelitzion work

A started and much of the bus stand arm has

* wbwzéen demolished and the plaintiff’s suit premises is left

A ‘ alone. 9″

/’

‘D

as

4. The further fact which is not in dispute. is that the

plaintiff has been rminirig the juice oenter

agreement dated 19.3.2003 entered into

and the Kamataka Agra Industries ilendif K

the licence period expires on

in dispute that an ageemeni _yvase1_1i:ered ¥’

the KAIC and the KSRTC and
which is produced befeie. as iex.ié-.33, the
parties had amendments
fmm time in the said
doeuriient~.isii?i?ei;i’:- 13.3.2009.

5. facts, the only substantial

quesf§ien*.of lavfiv” fliat arises for consideration is Whether

1§IWeii.Va§ip9:ilate court was justified in reversing the

in the face of the admitted facts.

*6: j Time learned counsei for the appellant-piainfifi’ Shri

submitted that the appellant is in

,,pessessien of the suit schedule premises and had even,

V’ sent the required iicence fee to the KSRTC from January

2006 onwards and in proof of the same, he had

%»’

d

produced Exs.P~1 to P-15 and P-16 to P-36 are’-._the

postal aclmowledgsments issued by H

Therefore, it is contended that the lower _

could not have interfered with tb;e’Ajudg1_x§::s1t«£t_;s_’tEisi”‘.

court more so Wham tbs

that the 1’espondent–KSRTC only V

by resorting to due prdcess csfls ‘.

7. On the other 1″1aim,- . «::sunss1 for the

respondm1t~KSi?jF(} sagibfiitted that the
process” {if is-f bus stand is going
on kiss stand structure will be

remoysd nsiv will be constructm and,

V’ “‘fl’}.(3’I’:’*.’-“.’.”f{‘.\1’?.i¢i'”‘.’1, the siiésfidn of evicting the: appellant by

due process of law would only lead to

executing the work and secondly it is

that the plaintifi’ has not entered into any

x agreement with the KSRTC and for this rmmn

.,also, the View taken by the lower appellate court cannot

‘V be held to be erroneous and, as such, no interference is

$4

/

\-I

6
called fer against the judgment of the lower appellate

C(}U.I’?..

8. Having thus head both sides and taking “ef

the admitted facts and also the snbmissiozrs’ M

the appellant’s counsel that the V

not taken any steps to evict the ~_

running their activities in .. ‘itself, V

the appellant, therefore,~ ltfitichyéptior to
the expiry of the licence of the said
submissioil’ ofderttto meet the ends of

justicefihe liovwerjeourt could have directed the

respondent’-KSRTC. to aeeommodate the plaintifi’ in one

‘-of aracaxjnt the existing premises at least

the licence period and thereafter, the

appropriate steps to- get the appellant

“evicted the suit premises or in the alternative, it is

to the KSRTC to enter into an agreement with

j appellant as well in case the respondent-KSRTC

‘ desires to pro-vide the appellant accommodation to run

his juice center. Therefore, the lower appellate court

9%

could not have set aside the judgment of the

in its entirety particzflariy having mgard to _

circumstances of this case. As such, fl’;-1-:~j.i,:1d$1icnVt zjf ” = ‘V

the lower apmliate court needs

9. Hence, I pass the f()Il<3stIi1:.1:fg';'%ord§§r:-~

The responde11t-i}<.{..;'f. _ to consider the
request of the in any one
of the juice center till
the 'which gets over on
Of the licence period, the

mspondei;t;KSRTC" to take such steps as is

openfito it in léw. ____

abiwc

therefom, stands disposed of in the

Sflfé
Judge

CW;