SRIKARANA Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
LAWS(KAR)-2022-2-188
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (FROM: DHARWAD)
Decided on February 07,2022

Srikarana Appellant
VERSUS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioners, who are in possession of certain shops within the precincts of Sri.Doddabasaveswaraswamy Temple, Kurugodu, Ballari District, have impugned the Competent Officer's order under Sec. 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act') and the confirmation thereof in the appeals filed in M.A. Nos.9- 16/2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ballari (for short, 'the Appellate Court').
(2.)The Competent Officer, the second respondent, by a common order dtd. 6/8/2014 has found that each of the petitioners is an unauthorised occupant of the respective premises and therefore, has directed them to hand over vacant possession such premises. The Appellate Court, while observing that the lease of respective premises is admitted by the petitioners and there is compliance insofar as the procedure with the relevant provisions of the Act, has affirmed the second respondent's order concluding that the petitioners cannot complain of lack of opportunity.
(3.)The relevant facts are that the first respondent, the Administrative Officer of a notified institution, has permitted the petitioners to occupy certain open spaces under unregistered deeds granting them permission to put up construction and use such constructed premises on terms. The terms stipulated include a cap on the expenses to be incurred in such construction and the rent free tenure for which the petitioners are permitted to occupy. The petitioners contend that after the initial agreed rent free tenure, each of the petitioners have paid the agreed rent until the first respondent, for obvious reason, refused to receive the rents, and the first respondent asserts that the petitioners have not paid the rents deliberately. In fact, the State has placed on record certain details to substantiate the first respondent's case that some of the petitioners have paid rent until 2012 and not thereafter.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.