SHAMAIAH GOWDA Vs. COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is an example to show as to how by inept handling of its case by a public authority it deprives itself of the relief to which it is entitled to in law for a long time, in this case, for over a decade.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follow: A site measuring 180 feet x 150 feet situate near Seenappa Shetty Circle, Nehru Road, within the vicinity of Shimoga City Municipal Council had been leased out in favour of the appellant more than quarter century before. The lease was initially for a period of five years and it was being extended from time to time in favour of the appellant without putting the same to auction after the expiry of each period of lease. Whatever that may be there is no dispute that the latest lease in favour of the appellant commenced from 22-1-1972 and was for a period of five years. It was due to expire on 22-1-1977. At that time the elected Council was not in existeace and consequently an administrator had been appointed for exercising the powers of the Municipal Council, The Administrator exercising the power of the Municipal Council passed a resolution on 7-1-1977. It reads : ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED).. The Resolution is clear and unambiguous. The Administrator was clearly of the opinion that the lease could not be and would not be extended on and after 22-1-1977 as the site in question was required for the purpose of the Municipal Council itself, Immediately thereafter, aggrieved by the Resolution of the Administrator the appellant preferred a revision petition before the State Government. The State Government issued an interim order staying the resolution of the Administrator on 15-1-1977 that is even before the expiry of the lease period. The main petition itself was disposed of on 25-8-1977. The Government came to the conclusion that the action of the Administrator was in accordance with law and therefore there was no ground for the Government to interfere. Shortly before that, the appellant filed O. S.No. 450/77 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Shimoga. praying for mandatory injunction against the Municipal Council not to evict him except in accordance with law. An interim injunction in like terms was granted. The Municipal Council filed R.A.No. 123/81 against the interim injunction, but it failed. It appears, the Municipal Council even filed a memo before the Munsiff stating that the Muncipality would take action only in accordance with law, namely, in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised Occupants) Act, 1974.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that no such memo was filed. If such a memo had been prepared on behalf of the Municipal Council and had not been filed before the learned Munsiff it is strange. But it would be stranger if the memo was filed and the Munsiff still proceeded with the suit, for the reason as the Municipality could take action against the appellant only in accordance with law, it was the duty of the Municipal Council to make such a submission in the suit and if such a memo had been filed, the Munsiff ought to have dismissed the suit recording the memo filed. But the fact remains that the Munsiff proceeded with the suit and he granted a permanent injunction against the Municipal Council as prayed for, namely, that the Municipal Council should not evict the appellant except in accordance with law. In fact for a local authority no such injunction is necessary because it is always bound to take action only in accordance with law and further in the present case the Municipality did not want to take action in violation of law. However, the suit was decreed on 16-10-1981 and against the said decree the Municipal Council preferred R.A.No. 123/81 before the Civil Judge, and the Civil Judge dismissed the appeal on 2-9-1983.