SRINIVAS BABU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitioners, who are lessees under respondent No.3 by virtue of rental/lease agreement dated 02.02.2005 at Annexure-C for a period of 20 years are before this Court for a writ of mandamus to quash the impugned final notice dated 14.11.2017 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexures-E to T.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 conducted a Special General Body meeting on 19.01.2005 for lease of shops through tender cum auction and to fix the deposit amount of tenants. Accordingly, notification dated 22.01.2005 for tender cum open auction was published in Kannada daily newspaper. Thereafter, on 02.02.2005, respondent No.3 executed rental/lease agreement for a period of 20 years in favour of petitioners to carry business in the shops by paying rent regularly and rent shall be enhanced to 10% for 5 years once. On 14.11.2017, respondent No.3 issued first time final notice to the petitioners to vacate the shops within 30 days, failing which, action will be initiated in terms of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974. Hence, the present petitioners are before this Court for the reliefs sought for.

(3.) Sri. Muniraju .V, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned final notice dated 14.11.2017, issued by respondent No.3 directing the petitioners to vacate from the respective shops within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which, action will be initiated against the petitioners in terms of the Provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 is erroneous and contrary to material on record. He would further contend that when the lease agreement executed by respondent No.3 for a period of 20 years, it will be ended only on 31.01.2025. Therefore, final notice issued by respondent No.3 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. He would further contend that when the lease is for a period of 20 years, without giving an opportunity, without passing an order and without following the procedure, they cannot be evicted from the respective shops. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by respondent No.3.