C BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Justice Mohan Kumar) as the learned judge felt that the decision in divisional controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Hubli and Another v. Gangadhar, requires re-consideration in the light of the decision of a division bench of this court in M/s. Patil Exhibitors (P) Ltd. V. Corporation of the City of Bangalore.

(2.) The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, the principal, maharani's arts college for women from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property which is a canteen building attached to maharani's arts college for women, otherwise, than under due process of law. According to the plaintiff, he is a tenant in respect of the canteen building attached to the maharani's arts college for women on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and he has been conducting business to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. He has paid rent up-to-date on the basis of a lease deed executed by him and he is even ready to enhance the rent. The first defendant sent a letter directing the plaintiff to vacate the building and deliver possession by 26-7-1993 and defendant 2 had threatened to take possession if he fails to deliver possession by that date. It is alleged in the plaint that he is a tenant in the suit premises and until an order of eviction is obtained against him under the Karnataka public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) ACT 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' ), the first defendant is not entitled to take forcible possession of the same. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the competent authority under sections 4 and 5 of the Act, has not passed an Order of eviction under the ACT and accordingly, he prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property, otherwise, than in accordance with law. Along with the suit, he also filed an application i.a.i. for a temporary injunction pending the suit for the very same relief.

(3.) defendants 1 and 2 filed an objection statement contending that the suit is not maintainable by virtue of the provisions contained in the act. The plaintiff was put in possession initially for a period of 12 months from 1-11-1990 to 31-10-1991 and thereafter, upto 30-6-1993. From 1-7-1993, the plaintiff is in unauthorised occupation of the premises and the plaint schedule property belongs to the government of karnataka. It is further contended that the continuation of the plaintiff would be unauthorised and the city civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the application.