LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-548

SRINIVAS S/O GAALI NARAYANASWATRY Vs. THE DAVANAGERE MAHANAGAR PALIKE REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE, REVENUE OFFICER MAHANAGARA PALIKE DAVANAGERE AND SHRI S.S. BASAVALINGAPPA S/O SHAMANUR SANGAPPA

Decided On August 06, 2012
Srinivas S/O Gaali Narayanaswatry Appellant
V/S
Davanagere Mahanagar Palike Rep. By Its Commissioner P.B. Road, Davanagere, Revenue Officer Mahanagara Palike Davanagere And Shri S.S. Basavalingappa S/O Shamanur Sangappa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to restore and provide water connection to the schedule premises where the petitioner is running his hotel business in the name and style Radhika Hotel'. The petitioner has also questioned the endorsement dated 22.01.2010 issued by the Revenue Officer, Davanagere Mahanagara Palike, which is impugned at Annexure -J to the petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the petition papers. Respondent No. 3 though served is unrepresented.

(2.) THE brief facts are that admittedly, the petition schedule premises bearing Nos. 252/1 and 252/2 measuring 14 x 100 sq.ft. situate at Ward No. 5, 7th division, P.B. Road, Davanagere, belongs to respondent No. 3. The petitioner herein contends that he has taken the premises under a rental agreement and is running the hotel business in the said premises. The petitioner claims that he has been paying rents regularly to the owner of the premises and is running his business therein.

(3.) AT the first instance, when the petition had come up before this Court on 26,03.2010, this Court had granted the interim order, subject to the condition that the petitionet would deposit 75% of the amount as quantified in the demand notice, which is impugned at Annexure -N. It was also made clear that since the petitioner is a tenant, the amount ordered to be deposited being the property tax, if it is ultimately found to be due, the petitioner would be entitled to adjust the same towards the rents payable to the third respondent i.e., the owner of the building. It was only for considering the version of respondent No. 3, notice had been issued by this Court. As indicated above, the respondent No. 3 has not chosen to appear and oppose the petition.