GREGORY D’SA Vs. UDUPI CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. 1/2013 has been filed by the 1st respondent seeking to vacate the stay order granted. Considering the said application would amount to hearing the petitions. Both counsels have advanced arguments on the merits of the petition. The case of the petitioners is that based on a lease executed by the 1st respondent-Municipality they are continuing in the premises in question. On the basis that the building is an old one and in a dilapidated condition Annexure-A came to be issued, wherein the extension of lease sought for by the petitioners was declined. The basis on which Annexure-A was passed was a resolution vide Annexure-B and hence, both these are sought to be quashed.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the building is extremely strong and built of granite. It is nowhere close to being in a dilapidated condition and that it would stay strong for a long time to come. Therefore, the reason assigned is inappropriate. In support of his case, he has, relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 7421/2009 and connected matters disposed on 17.4.2009 to the effect that since no reasons are assigned before taking any action, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Reliance is also placed on the judgment, in the case of C.M. Beena and another Vs P.N. Ramachandra Rao, 2004 AIR(SCW) 1858 with reference to paragraph 8, to contend the difference between lease and rent and that what he is paying lease and not rent. Hence, he pleads that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri T.I. Abdulla, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contends that in law there is no lease subsisting in favour of the petitioners. The lease has expired on 31.3.2013. Further, Annexure-A is an appealable order in terms of Section 343(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. Therefore, in the existence of an alternative and efficacious remedy, no relief could be granted to the petitioners.