Karnataka High Court
M/S John Car Work Shop vs Estate Officer on 1 June, 2022
Bench: S.G.Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.6953/2022 (GM-PP)
BETWEEN:
M/S. JOHN CAR WORK SHOP
PROP. JOHN KRISTOPHER
S/O JOHN STEPHEN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OLD M.H.SAW MILL CAMPUS
SHERIFF COLONY
H.N.PURA ROAD
HASSAN CITY-573201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VEERESH M UPPIN, ADV. FOR
SRI CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADV.)
AND:
1. ESTATE OFFICER
CANARA BANK
PREMISES AND ESTATE SECTION
CIRCLE OFFICE
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. CHIEF MANAGER
CANARA BANK
HASSAN MAIN BRANCH
N.R.CIRCLE
HASSAN-573211.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V HARIDAS BHAT, ADV. FOR C/R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 09.03.2022 IN M.A.NO.02/2022 PASSED BY THE
2
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN
VIDE ANNEX-C AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India challenging the
correctness and legality of the order (Annexure-C) dated
09.03.2022 passed in M.A.No.02/2022 on the file of II
Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hassan and
also to quash the order (Annexure-B) dated 11.01.2022
in Case No.5/2021 passed by the 1st respondent.
2. Heard Sri. Veeresh M. Uppin, learned counsel for
Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri V. Haridas Bhat, learned counsel for
caveator/2nd respondent. Perused the writ petition
papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a tenant in possession of the premises
bearing No.E-Katha No.23-1-13-45 in the building of
M/s.M.H. Saw Mill, H.N. Pura Road, Hassan, wherein
the petitioner is carrying on business of workshop.
4. The 2nd respondent claims that it purchased the
property belonging to M/s. M.H. Saw Mill, in execution
proceedings. Under the provisions of the Karnataka
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)
Act, 1974 (for short 'the 1974 Act') action was initiated
against the petitioner. It is stated that without affording
any opportunity to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent
passed order on 11.01.2022 directing the petitioner to
vacate the premises in question, failing which, petitioner
would be liable for eviction. Aggrieved by the said order
the petitioner filed M.A.No.2/2022 before the learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hassan.
Learned District Judge by judgment dated 09.03.2022
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner confirming the
order dated 11.01.2022 in Case No.5/2021.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
no proper opportunity was provided before the 2nd
respondent during the enquiry under the provisions of
the 1974 Act; notice under Section 4 of the Act is not in
conformity with the provisions of the 1974 Act; no
enquiry is conducted as contemplated under the
provisions of the 1974 Act and that the premises
occupied by the petitioner is not a public premises
within the meaning of Section 2 (e)(i) of the 1974 Act.
6. Learned counsel for the caveator /2nd respondent
submits that this Court considered all the contentions
raised by the petitioner in an identical writ petition in
W.P.No.6015/2022 and dismissed the writ petition by
order dated 21.04.2022.
7. The said submission is not disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. This Court had an occasion to consider similar
contentions in W.P.No.6015/2022 (GM-PP), that is
raised by the petitioner herein and this Court by order
dated 21.04.2022 by a detailed order rejected all the
contentions raised by the petitioner therein.
9. Following the reasons assigned in the order dated
21.04.2022 in W.P.No.6015/2022(GM-PP), the instant
writ petition also stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NG*
CT:bms
