B.V. BASAVALINGAPPA Vs. CHIEF OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.15/2017 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 24.01.2017 made by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Chikkanayakanahalli, in his pending M.A.No.3/2017 whereby his IA No.1/2017 for temporary protection has been rejected. After service of notice, the respondent - defendant having entered appearance through its Panel Counsel opposes the writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his lease dated 23.02.2000 is not in dispute; his occupation of the allegedly subject public premises is not in dispute; on the strength of a Government Circular dated 14.08.2015, the respondent, a statutory authority which is a local body cannot resort to high handed acts calculated to dispossess the petitioner from the premises; if the respondent wants to evict the petitioner, the procedure as prescribed by the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 has to be followed. This aspect having not been adverted to by the Courts below, there is error apparent on the face of the impugned order warranting the indulgence of this Writ Court, for setting the injustice at naught.

(3.) Learned Panel Counsel for the respondent - defendant makes submission in justification of the impugned order contending that both the Courts below having exercised due discretion, in the fitness of the facts have concurrently denied relief to the petitioner and therefore, this Court exercising restrictive extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should show due difference to the reasoning of the Courts below and decline indulgence.