TOWN PANCHAYAT HARAPANAHALLI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT-THE Town Panchayat, Harapanahalli, being aggrieved of the order passed by the Single Judge directing the appellant to allot in favour of each of the writ petitioner-respondents in W. P. Nos. 30845 to 30849 of 1998 a shop in the building constructed by it for a period of four years 11 months at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- and a further direction to allot a shop in favour of each of the writ petitioner-respondents in W. P. No. 30850 to 30854 of 1998 at a rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month for a period of 4 years 11 months, has filed these appeals challenging the impugned order.

(2.) FACTS: Respondent-writ petitioners (for short, 'the respondents')were tenants in respect of certain shop premises belonging to the appellant. The said shop premises came to be demolished by the appellant as per the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Harapanahally (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent 2') for the purpose of widening the roads. Later on a scheme was introduced by the Government of India by virtue of which respondent 2 got constructed 22 shops in the land belonging to the appellant. The dimension of each of the shop is 11 ft x 22 ft. Subsequently, the said shops were notified for allotment to the members of the public by means of an auction. Auction was conducted and bid offered in respect of 12 shops were accepted. However, in view of the interim order passed by this Court in respect of 10 shops, the auction conducted was not finalised.

(3.) RESPONDENTS filed the writ petitions contending that since they were admittedly the tenants carrying on business in the premises belonging to the appellant, the appellant and respondent 2 should be directed to allot the shops to the respondents on preferential basis by accepting reasonable rent from the respondents. It was pointed put that in respect of Hospet Town Municipal Council, the 2nd respondent, who got the shops constructed out of the funds made available under the similar scheme sponsored by the Government of India had reserved shops to the tenants who were displaced. Under these circumstances, when the 2nd respondent was implementing the scheme sponsored by the Government of India and got the shops constructed out of the funds made available by the Government of India, there was no justification for the 2nd respondent to proceed to auction the shops within the municipal limits of the appellant. The respondents being poor displaced persons carrying on business either as barbers or other allied professions akin to that are entitled to the allotment of the shops on preferential basis by accepting a reasonable rent. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Labha Ram and sons and Others v State of Punjab and Others. The appellant and respondent 2 being the instrumentality of the State were required to act in a reasonable and fair manner in their directions. Offer was made by the writ petitioners in W. P. Nos. 30850 to 30854 that they were prepared to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month with the stipulation that they will be prepared to enhance the rent by ten per cent after the expiry of two years period of the lease. Similarly for the shops in W. P. Nos. 30845 to 30849 of 1998 the petitioners were prepared to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- as rent with a similar stipulation of increase in rent after the expiry of two years period of the lease.