Karnataka High Court
Sri. B.C Gopala Reddy vs The Commissioner on 5 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36537-DB
WA No. 712 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 712 OF 2022 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.C. GOPALA REDDY
S/O SRI. CHIKKABHADRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT. NO.1320, 11TH CROSS ROAD
21ST 'B' MAIN ROAD, H.S.R. SECTOR-1
BENGALURU-560 034
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHAT GANAPATHY NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
Digitally signed
by BENGALURU-560 020
CHANNEGOWDA
PREMA
Location: High
Court of 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-4
Karnataka
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020
3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EAST DIVISION
H.S.R. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 102
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36537-DB
WA No. 712 of 2022
(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.07.2022 IN WP No.6830/2020
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU BY ALLOWING
THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED IN THE WRIT PETITION IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as
well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the
learned Single Judge non-suiting the appellant on the ground
that he is not entitled to exercise of discretional jurisdiction of
NC: 2024:KHC:36537-DB
this Court since the submissions made by him in the writ
petition establishes malafides and amounts to abuse of process
of Court.
3. Learned Single Judge has refused to exercise
jurisdiction vested under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India on the ground that the conduct of the
petitioner therein, who has come to the Court claiming that he
has made payments in accordance with lease deed dated
11.08.2006 is clearly incorrect going by his own pleadings. The
learned Single Judge found that the lease deed entered into on
11.08.2006 provided for payment of monthly rent of
Rs.29,000/- which was to be increased every two years by
10%. The specific pleading of the appellant/petitioner before
the learned Single Judge was that from 2006 to 2011, the
appellant/petitioner had made the payment of entire rents as
provided in the lease deed. It was further contended that the
demand notice issued to the petitioner as well as the order
passed by the respondents on 10.02.2020, were illegal and the
amounts claimed were also incorrect.
NC: 2024:KHC:36537-DB
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the payment made by the appellant towards the
rent has not been properly calculated and given credit to by the
respondents.
5. It is contended that even going by the calculations
of the BDA, they had collected an amount of Rs.56,65,042/-
and that in notice dated 06.01.2020 issued to the
appellant/petitioner initially, the claim raised was for
Rs.17,83,825/- in respect of the premises. The respondents
have claimed for an amount of Rs.41,22,676/- by adding
additional interest, GST and other charges. Further, in the final
demand notice dated 10.02.2020, the total amount claimed is
Rs.42,65,746/- as against the earlier alleged claim of
Rs.17,83,825/-. It is therefore contended that the respondents
should be called upon to place proper statements on record.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on
the other hand, contends that all amounts paid by the appellant
have been specifically given credit to as is evident from
Annexure - R1. It is stated that after taking the property on
lease on 11.08.2006, the first payment was made by the
NC: 2024:KHC:36537-DB
petitioner only on 24.03.2007 and that he was never regular in
the payment as claimed by him. It is contended that the entire
amounts paid by the appellant has been given credit to.
However, since the lease deed specifically provided for 18%
interest on unpaid amounts, the said rate of interest has been
calculated by the respondents and after giving credit to all the
amounts paid, the amount has been arrived at and demanded.
7. We notice that the appellant/petitioner in the writ
petition as well as in this appeal before this Court has
specifically pleaded that amount the appellant has to pay as
monthly rent is Rs.29,000/- per month and that it comes to
Rs.3,48,000/- per year. His specific contention even in this
appeal is that from 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2011, he has paid rent
at the rate of Rs.3,48,000/- per year. It is adding up those
amounts as is evident from paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the writ
appeal that he contends that an amount of Rs.3,48,000/- per
year has been paid till 30.09.2019.
8. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the
contentions raised with regard to the payment of rent in the
writ petition itself. Learned Single Judge came to the
NC: 2024:KHC:36537-DB
conclusion that what has been paid by the appellant was rent at
the rate of Rs.29,000/- per month from the date of entering
into the lease deed till 2019. It was found that the contention
that he had paid the rent as provided in the lease deed was an
incorrect submission since what was paid was only Rs.29,000/-
per month which is not taking note of the enhancement of 10%
increase every two years and that the pleadings placed on
record and the arguments raised by the appellant/petitioner
would amount to abuse of process of Court.
9. In the light of the contentions raised in the appeal
also, we are not inclined to differ from the findings of the
learned Single Judge. In the light of the contentions raised, we
are of the opinion that the non-suiting of the
appellant/petitioner on the ground that he had not approached
this Court with proper pleadings and with clean hands cannot
be found fault with.
10. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
are not inclined to enter into any of the arithmetic calculations
as raised in this writ appeal. It is not the function of
constitutional Courts to enter into the factual disputes between
NC: 2024:KHC:36537-DB
the parties. We are of the clear opinion that in case the
appellant was seeking indulgence of this Court, he should have
at least expressed his willingness to pay the actual amounts
due under the lease deed which he refuses to do even at the
appellate stage. In view of the specific findings as stated
above, the writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
RAK
