MARUTHI Vs. COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ appeals are directed against the order dated 7-4-2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, disposing of the batch of the W.P. Nos. 107823 to 10827 and 107829 to 10835 of 2016 connected with W.P. Nos. 104800 to 104814 of 2016 (LB-RES) holding that the respondent-City Municipal Council, Mudhol is entitled to proceed under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 against the present appellants/petitioners, who have not handed over the vacant possession of the Municipal Council shops, after the expiry of their respective lease period.

(2.) The case set-up by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge as well as this Court is that, when under the erstwhile circular dated 26-10-2009, the respondent-Municipal Council has taken a resolution dated 27-8-2014 vide Annexure-D seeking to renew their respective leases at higher rent and had sent it for approval of the State Government, while the process of approval was pending, the State Government came out with another circular dated 14-8-2015 vide Annexure-N, taking a policy decision that the new leases would be granted for a period of 12 years, only after determining the market rent of said shops by holding the public auction for respective shops in the municipal markets.

(3.) The petitioners-appellants have urged that in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Municipal Council, the respondent-the Commissioner, Municipal Council was bound to renew the said lease deeds of the petitioners/appellants for a period of five years or even less than that which would not require an approval of the State Government in accordance with the Sec. 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Having not done so, the petitioners cannot be compelled to go for public auction in terms of the new circular dated 14-8-2015.