P.V. RAJARATHNAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE TAHSILDAR AND SMT. ACHAMMA CHARITIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the proposed public auction vide public notice dated 22.10.2012 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to illegally dispossess the petitioner from the shop premises without due process of law under the pretext of conducting public auction. The case of the petitioner is that he is occupant of two shop premises bearing No. 323, 323/1 (old Municipal Khata No. 386), New Khatha No. 563/515 situated at Bazaar Street, Bangarpet belonging to Acchamma Charities, Bangarpet. The petitioner claims to be paying monthly rent of Rs. 1,464/-. The 3rd respondent is said to be the Managing Trustee of the said authority. The petitioner contends that his father P.N. Venkatachalapathy Setty was the tenant from time immemorial and thereafter, the petitioner has become the tenant in respect of the said property. The agreement dated 5.11.1999 is relied upon to claim that the petitioner is the occupant of the said property. The case of the petitioner is also that even as of the year 2012, the rents were being paid and the rent receipts are produced at Annexure-D to the petition. The petitioner further refers to the order dated 16.7.2003 passed by the Mujarai Department wherein the claim of the petitioner to demolish the old building and put up construction has been considered and granted. In that regard, the petitioner is said to have addressed communications as at Annexures-F to H, wherein the petitioner was interested in proceeding further and putting up the construction. Since the petitioner had noticed the impugned paper publication as at Annexure-A, the petitioner is also stated to have written a letter as at Annexure-J and has approached this Court assailing the action of the respondents.

(2.) The respondents have filed their objection statement. It is their case that the property in question being public property under the control of the Mujarai Department as belonging to the charity is being put to best use. It is contended that in that regard an auction had been conducted and the petitioner had also participated in the said auction by depositing EMD of Rs. 50,000/- but he was not the successful bidder. The list of participants including the name of the petitioner is produced as Annexure-R1 to the objection statement. Further, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not in physical possession of the premises as he is living in Bangalore but had sub-let the premises on higher rent. The persons who are in occupation have also participated and succeeded in the auction in respect of the shops to which the petitioner claims and as such, the case of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

(3.) In the light of the rival contentions, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the right of the petitioner to continue as tenant in respect of the premises, when the same has not been lawfully terminated nor the petitioner had been evicted from the premises. The premises will not be available for auction and therefore, auction-notice itself is contrary to law is the contention. Even otherwise, there was an understanding between the petitioner and the respondent, whereby the petitioner himself was to vacate the tenants and develop the premises. When such right is available to the petitioner, the respondent should not have auctioned the property. It is the settled position of law that unless the tenant is evicted, the property will not be available for auction and therefore, the auction notice has to be set aside and right to the petitioner is to be; protected is the contention.