FAHMIDA BEGAUM Vs. BRUHAT BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus and direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the property bearing No. 24/2, Division No. 87, Ward No. 91, Haines Road, Eraser Town, Bangalore, without following the due process of law. The Petitioner has also sought for consideration of the application/representation dated 24.02.2007 and 20.09.2007. The case of the petitioner is that the property in question was leased in her favour by the respondents under a lease deed dated 29.12.1975. In that regard, the petitioner relies on the copy of the same as at Annexure-A. The petitioner also states that at an earlier point in time, a notice as contemplated under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short the 'Act') was issued to the petitioner seeking to evict her from the premises in question. However, on the reply being submitted by the petitioner, the proceedings had been dropped and there was no further action for eviction of the petitioner thereafter. Presently, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite there being no procedure being followed, there is threat of eviction of the petitioner without due process of law.

(2.) In that regard, the petitioner refers to certain suit in O.S. No. 7659/2007 which had been filed by one Sri Aslam against the official respondents herein and the petitioner. Though the suit had been dismissed, the learned Counsel who had represented the plaintiff therein has thereafter sent a notice to the respondents and the same has triggered certain action against the petitioner to dispossess her. As such, the respondents have neither followed any due process of law nor is there any order of Court as stated in the said notice. The petitioner is therefore claiming that any action can be taken only in accordance with law and in the meanwhile since the representation made by the petitioner has not been considered, the respondents are required to consider the same as well.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents would point out, at this juncture the only right that the petitioner can claim is to be in position as a lessee. As such, as and when the respondents require the premises appropriate action in accordance with law shall be initiated and only thereafter any action for eviction would be taken. Insofar as the representation, the learned Counsel would contend that no positive mandamus could be issued by this Court to consider it in any particular manner. However, if such representation is pending, the same would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.