MADINA MASJID Vs. KAREEMULLA SHERIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the VI Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore in M. A. No. 72/2003, dated 22-9-2003 vide Annexure-A and for such other reliefs.

(2.) THE petitioner is said to be a Madina masjid situated at Sulthan Gi Gunta Road, bangalore owning a property let out to the first respondent at Bamboo Bazaar. According to the petitioner, the property in question is a wakf institution and it belongs to the management of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent is an unauthorised occupant in respect of a portion of the property bearing No. 40 at Sulthan Gi gunta Road and he is using it for housing about 50 and more cattle and it has become a nuisance to the entire area. In spite of the requests and complaints, the first respondent did not vacate the premises and hence the petitioner said to have initiated the proceedings under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short "kpp Act, 1974") and also it is alleged that the first respondent is encroaching upon the surrounding area. In this regard, the second respondent issued a show cause notice as contemplated under Section 4 (1) of the kpp Act, 1974 and to the said notice the first respondent has issued a reply contending that he is not a tenant under the petitioner and he is a tenant under the Wakf Board and also that he is not an unauthorised occupant. However, after issuance of notice, eviction proceeding was initiated before the Competent Officer who passed an order under Sections 5 and 7 of the KPP Act, 1974 holding that the first respondent is an unauthorised occupant and directed him to vacate the schedule premises. Being aggrieved by the order of the Competent Officer, the first respondent moved the vi Additional City Civil Court in M. A. No. 72/2003 wherein the learned Judge held that the notice itself a defective one and quashed the eviction order passed by the Competent officer. Hence, the petition is before this Court in this writ petition.

(3.) HEARD the learned Senior Counsel Sri. S. P. Shankar, appearing on behalf M/s. S. Z. A. Khureshi Associates and the learned counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 2.