AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus and direct the respondents not to dispossess the
petitioner from the property bearing No. 24/2, Division No. 87, Ward No. 91, Haines Road, Eraser Town, Bangalore, without following the due
process of law. The Petitioner has also sought for consideration of the application/representation dated 24.02.2007 and 20.09.2007. The case of
the petitioner is that the property in question was leased in her favour by the respondents under a lease deed dated 29.12.1975. In that regard, the
petitioner relies on the copy of the same as at Annexure-A. The petitioner also states that at an earlier point in time, a notice as contemplated under
the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short the ''Act'') was issued to the petitioner seeking to evict
her from the premises in question. However, on the reply being submitted by the petitioner, the proceedings had been dropped and there was no
further action for eviction of the petitioner thereafter. Presently, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite there being no procedure being
followed, there is threat of eviction of the petitioner without due process of law.
In that regard, the petitioner refers to certain suit in O.S. No. 7659/2007 which had been filed by one Sri Aslam against the official respondents
herein and the petitioner. Though the suit had been dismissed, the learned Counsel who had represented the plaintiff therein has thereafter sent a
notice to the respondents and the same has triggered certain action against the petitioner to dispossess her. As such, the respondents have neither
followed any due process of law nor is there any order of Court as stated in the said notice. The petitioner is therefore claiming that any action can
be taken only in accordance with law and in the meanwhile since the representation made by the petitioner has not been considered, the
respondents are required to consider the same as well.
Learned Counsel for the respondents would point out, at this juncture the only right that the petitioner can claim is to be in position as a lessee.
As such, as and when the respondents require the premises appropriate action in accordance with law shall be initiated and only thereafter any
action for eviction would be taken. Insofar as the representation, the learned Counsel would contend that no positive mandamus could be issued
by this Court to consider it in any particular manner. However, if such representation is pending, the same would be considered and disposed of in
accordance with law.
In the light of the above, considering the fact that the petitioner is claiming right to the property as a lessee under a document, it is needless to
mention that the action for eviction can only be taken in accordance with law by initiating proceedings under the Act. Presently, there is no material
placed on record that such action has been initiated and has culminated in any order of eviction. Therefore, at this juncture, all that requires to be
observed is that the respondents would not be entitled to dispossess the petitioner without taking recourse of law as indicated herein. Insofar as the
claim of the petitioner for consideration of the representation, since she relies on a copy of the representation which is of the year 2007 as at
Annexures-H and J, the consideration of the same would have to be left to the respondents to be done in accordance with law without indicating
the specific manner of consideration of the same. Hence, to enable the respondents to consider the same;, the petitioner shall file one more copy of
the said representation along with certified (sic) this order with respondent No. 2, who shall thereafter place it before the competent authority to
take a decision in the matter and the decision taken on the representation one way or the other in accordance with law shall be communicated to
the petitioner. Until the representation is considered and disposed of and appropriate action is taken for evicting the petitioner in accordance with
law, the possession of the petitioner shall not be interfered with by the respondents.
The petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.