- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13347 RSA No. 286 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. S.K.ABUBAKAR S/O MR. ABDUL KHADAR AGED 56 YEARS FISH MERCHANT R/O GUNAVANTHE ROAD, CHIKKANAGUNDI HARANDUR -VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-577 126. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ABDUL RAZAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TOWN PANCHAYATH KOPPA KOPPA TOWN, KOPPA TALUK CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-577 126. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.27/2023 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R. PURA INTINERATE AT KOPPA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.15/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, KOPPA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13347 RSA No. 286 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2024 passed in R.A.No.27/2023 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R.Pura itinerate at Koppa and the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2023 passed in O.S.No.15/2020 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppa. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants Panchayat, its officers, its agents or anybody claiming through the defendant Panchayat from vacating the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13347 RSA No. 286 of 2025 plaintiff forcibly from the suit schedule properties bearing shop Nos.1 to 7 without due process of law. The defendant is the absolute owner of shops bearing No.1 to 7. The defendant Panchayat issued a tender auctioning the suit schedule shops to be rented for a period of one year at a public auction, held on 19.02.2018. The plaintiff was the highest bidder. The said shops were rented out to the plaintiff on a monthly rent for one year. The defendant has not conducted an auction for 2019-2020 and informed the plaintiff to continue for another one year. Accordingly, he continued in the said shops by paying the defendant a fixed rent. On 27.02.2020, the defendant issued a public Notification to conduct a public auction of the fresh fish shops No.1 to 7 and conducted auctions. Later on the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 09.03.2020 canceling the auction dated 27.02.2020 carried out by the defendant Panchayat on the ground that said auction was against the law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13347 RSA No. 286 of 2025 4. It is contended that the plaintiff is ready to take the said shops in auction for another period as he has no other source of income for his livelihood. It is contended that the defendant’s officials tried to illegally remove the plaintiff from the said shops. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. The defendant filed a written statement admitting that the plaintiff is a running fresh fish business in shops No.1 to 7 and the said shops were let out for one year. The plaintiff is not paying the rent regularly to the defendant Panchayat. Subsequently, the said lease period was not extended. It is contended that the plaintiff is in unauthorised possession of the shops No.1 to 7. The tenancy period of the plaintiff was completed on 31.03.2019 itself. The plaintiff has no right to continue in possession of the suit schedule shops. It is contended that the Panchayat has issued a Notification on 27.02.2020 for the public auction of suit schedule shops. By learning the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13347 RSA No. 286 of 2025 said fact, the plaintiff approached the Court to obtain the interim order. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner is cancelled the public auction as per the report of MLA. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 8. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1 and marked five documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. During the cross-examination of PW-1, the documents at Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 came to be marked. On the other hand, the Chief Officer of Koppa, defendant Panchayat, filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as DW-1 and no documents were marked through DW-1. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 30.08.2023. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.15/2020 preferred - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13347 RSA No. 286 of 2025 an appeal in R.A.No.27/2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at N.R.Pura itinerate at Koppa. 9. The first appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 23.11.2024. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits, that defendant without due process of law is trying to vacate the plaintiff forcibly from the suit schedule shops. He submits that the Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He submits that the plaintiff is paying the rent regularly to the defendant. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is arbitrary and erroneous and hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13347 RSA No. 286 of 2025 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 13. It is not disputed that the defendant issued an Notification to auction the suit schedule shops for 2018- 2019, for a period of one year. The plaintiff was the highest bidder in the auction and the defendant let out the suit schedule shops in favour of the plaintiff for 2018 and 2019. The defendant did not issue a public auction notification for 2019 and 2020. The defendant allowed the plaintiff to continue to enjoy the suit schedule shops for another year. The plaintiff, in the course of cross- examination, has clearly admitted that the plaintiff had taken the suit schedule shops for one year on a monthly rent of Rs.2600/- and further, admitted that a fresh Notification were issued on 20.02.2020 as per Ex.D.1 and on 01.02.2020 14. He had obtained the shops No.1 to 7, which were auctioned on 19.02.2018 and admitted that he had - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13347 RSA No. 286 of 2025 not produced any records to show that the defendant had extended the lease period. PW-1 admitted that when the notification were issued again on 20.02.2020 he had filed this suit. He also stated that he was not allowed to enter the said proceedings. He also denied that the plaintiff has not paid the rent regularly but stated that he cannot tell specifically how much rent to be paid and further it is stated that the plaintiff did not make any application/representation to the defendant Panchayat for extension of lease. 15. PW-1 admitted that the defendant gave a notice as per law and he has not given any reply to the said notice and it is also stated that an order of eviction was passed directing the plaintiff to vacate the shops. He stated that he had not taken the said order. 16. Though the defendants have already initiated eviction proceedings against the plaintiff the order of eviction was already passed. The defendants are taking steps to evict the plaintiff through the due process of law. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13347 RSA No. 286 of 2025 An order of eviction has already been passed. In view of the same, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, with cost. 17. The first appellate Court, on reassessing the entire evidence on record, has rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.15/2020. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 23.11.2024 passed in R.A.No.27/2023 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R.Pura itinerate at Koppa and the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2023 passed in O.S.No.15/2020 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppa are hereby confirmed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13347 RSA No. 286 of 2025 No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26