RAGHAVENDRA ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - In these writ petitions, Petitioner which is a partnership firm has challenged the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the 3rd Respondent in respect of Parimala Theatre (Annexure - 'G') and order bearing even date in respect of Pradeep Theatre as per Annexure - H and also order passed by the 2nd Respondent in respect of Parimala Theatre dated 12.05.2009 as per Annexure - 'J' and order bearing even date in respect of Pradeep Theatre passed by the 2nd Respondent as per Annexure - 'K'.

(2.) The Petitioner has averred that it is a registered partnership firm and the property bearing No. 290, City Market Square. Kalasipalyam, Bangalore-2 belongs to the 4th Respondent. It was initially a vacant land and that the Petitioner had approached the managing committee of the 4th Respondent as well the State Government to lease out the vacant land on long lease for the erection of a cinema theatre and for exhibition of films. The State Government as well as the Managing Committee of the 4th Respondent agreed to lease out the land for an initial period of 30 years with a condition that the Petitioner should invest for putting up construction of a cinema theatre and accordingly fixed the rents. It was also stated that the Petitioner had an option to renew the lease for a further period of 10 years subject to certain terms and conditions. Order dated 11.03.1974 was issued by the State Government as per Annexure - 'A' since the 4th Respondent is under the charge of an admit or pursuant to which a registered lease deed was entered into between the Petitioner and the 4th Respondent on 26.04.1974 as per Annexure-'B'. Thereafter, Government orders dated 24.07.1976 has been issued modifying the earlier terms of the lease deed in respect of Parimala Theatre and Pradeed Theatre. That the initial period of lease expired on 29.04.2004 and in terms of the renewal clause negotiations have taken place between the Petitioner and the 4th Respondent but the same have not concluded yet.

(3.) According to the Petitioner, the 4th Respondent had sent a draft lease deed as per Annexure-'E' but there has been no final lease agreement entered into between the parties. The Petitioner has paid rents and has continued to pay rents to the 4th Respondent since the expiry of the lease.