B. HARI SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(2.) The petitioners claim to be tenants of certain shops which are owned by a registered trust by name Sri.Radha Krishna Charitable Trust. The petitioners are occupying premises for the last nearly one decade. The petitioners were issued notices under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by the Trust for vacating the premises. Thereafter, a suit in O.S.No.246/2020 and 242/2020 was filed before the Civil Judge at Bellary. During the pendency of the said suit, a complaint was filed by the respondent No.4 - Commissioner, Ballary City Corporation as regards the fitness of the premises, the landlord had allegedly got a concocted report from an agency on which basis the order was issued directing the petitioners to vacate the premises on the ground that the premises had become dilapidated and unfit for human habitation. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) Sir. Mohammed Abrar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the proceedings initiated by respondent No.4 is at the behest of the landlord - Trust and there is no basis for the same. He relies upon photographs which have been produced by him as regards the property in the occupation of the petitioners to contend that the said properties are in proper condition, fit for human habilitation and fit for carrying out business activities. He submits that the portion of the property in the occupation by the petitioners being fit for human occupation, the same cannot be ordered to be demolished if any other portion of the property is in a dilapidated condition, the same could be demolished. In this regard, he relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sharif M. A. and Others vs Mysore City Corporation and others reported in ILR 2002 KAR 1674 more particularly para No.16, 18 and 27 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: