RITZ HOTELS MYSORE LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for transfer of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 26/1983, pending on the file of the 4th respondent, to the 3rd respondent for being heard and decided along with the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13/1983 which is pending on the file of the 3rd respondent.

(2.) Both the appeals arise out of the same order passed by the Competent Officer (Respondent No. 2) under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The two premises known as Hotel Metropole and Hotel Krishna Raja Sagara situated at Mysore and Krishnaraja Sagar respectively were leased to the petitioner. Hotel Krishnarajasagar is situated in the District of Mandya whereas Hotel Metropole is situated in Mysore District at Mysore. As the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of the lease, the second respondent (the Competent Officer) has initiated a proceeding under the provisions of the Act and has passed an order of eviction of the petitioner from both the Hotel premises. It is against this order of eviction, the petition has preferred the aforesaid appeals before respondents 3 and 4. Having regard to the fact that Hotel Metropole is situated at Mysore and Hotel Krishnarajasagara is situated at Krishnasagar which comes under Mandya District, M.A. No. 26/1983 which pertains to Hotel Krishnarajasagara is preferred before respondent No. 4 and M. A. No. 13/1983 which relates to Hotel Metropole at Mysore is preferred before the 3rd respondent.

(3.) It is submitted that as both the appeals arise out of the one order passed by the Competent Officer in one and the same proceeding and the lease deed pertaining to both the premises is also one and the same, if the appeals are to be decided by two different appellate Authorities, there is every likelihood of conflict of decisions. It is further submitted that respondents 3 and 4 enjoy appellate jurisdiction under the Act; therefore, in the interest of justice and to avoid conflict of decisions, it is just and necessary to transfer the appeal pending on the file of the 4th respondent to the file of the 3rd respondent.