- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15080 WP No. 57208 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 57208 OF 2018 (GM-PP) BETWEEN: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST) MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICES, GROUND FLOOR, MAYO HALL BUILDINGS, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSONER, N R SQUARE BANGALORE – 560002 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ESTATE) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BANGALORE – 560002 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EAST) MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICERS, GROUND FLOOR, MAYO HALL BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560001 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(A) SRI SAMPATH RAJ JAIN S/O P KUNDANMAL SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LRs SMT INDIRA JAIN W/O LATE SAMPATH RAJ JAIN SRI SAPAN GADIYA Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15080 WP No. 57208 of 2018 1(B) 1(C) 1(D) S/O LATE SAMPATH RAJ JAIN SRI SAPNA JAIN D/O LATE SAMPATH RAJ JAIN SANDEEP RAJ JAIN S/O LATE SAMPATH RAJ JAIN ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.7, MILLER TANK BED AREA, BANGALORE 2. M/S CONTINENTAL EXPORTERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI SAMPATH RAJ JAIN, NO 7, MILLER TANK BED AREA, BANGALORE 560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI SAMPATH RAJ JAIN …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND ALSO FOR R1 (A,C,D) R1(B) – SAPAN GADYA SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.A.NO.54/2011, PASSED BY THE XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DATED 17.9.2018, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE XXIX ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DATED 17.9.2018 IN M.A.NO.54/2011, DATED 17.9.2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL FOR NON PROSECUTION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15080 WP No. 57208 of 2018 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners / Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘BBMP’) is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to: a. Call for the records in MA.No.54/2011, passed by the XXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore dated 17.09.2018. b. Set aside the order passed cy the XXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore dated 17.09.2018 in MA.No.54/2011, dated 17.09.2018, vide Annexure-A, and consequently allow the writ petition. And c. Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The BBMP had entered into a lease agreement with the respondent on 08.01.1976 for a period of 99 years of land measuring about 3,000 sq. yards bearing site number 7 in Miller Tank Bed Area, Queens Road, Bangalore, alleging that there is a violation of clause 5 of the said lease agreement in as much as the respondent lessee had put up construction and leased it out to a third party. Proceeding has been initiated by the BBMP for termination - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15080 WP No. 57208 of 2018 of the lease and a demand was made for handover of the physical possession. Reply having been received and an order had been passed by petitioner No.1 / Joint Commissioner directing the respondent to hand over the possession in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section (5) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1974 within 45 days. The respondent filed an appeal in MA.No.54/2011 which came to be allowed vide order dated 17.09.2018 on the ground that the superstructure which had been put up by the respondent on the land leased would not belong to the corporation constituting a public premise. It is challenging the said order that the petitioner / BBMP is before this Court. 3. The submission of learned counsel Sri. BS Srinivas, appearing for the petitioner is that in terms of the lease the lessee shall not sub-lease or part with possession of the scheduled land in any manner whatsoever. He submits that the scheduled land being empty property, the lease of any superstructure would include a lease of the portion of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15080 WP No. 57208 of 2018 the land and as such the same is in violation of clause 5 of the agreement of lease dated 08.01.1976. 4. Learned counsel Sri. LM Chidanandayya, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the lis in the above matter is already decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/S Laxmi Enterprises V/S The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike An Another reported in ILR 2012 KAR 5474, more particularly para Nos.25 and 34 thereof. 5. He submits that when a vacant plot is leased and construction is put up by the lessee, such construction being a superstructure would not be a public premise. The object of Public Premises Act is to only make it applicable to the premises owned by a public authority. In this case, the BBMP owns only the land and not the building which is the ownership of the lessee and as such he submits that the order passed by a Trial Court is proper and correct. 6. Heard learned counsel Sri. BS Srinivas, appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel Sri. LM Chidanandaya, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15080 WP No. 57208 of 2018 appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the papers. 7. Para Nos.25 and 34 of Lakshmi Enterprises case is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “25. In the instant case, the Corporation is the owner of the land. Under the lease deed at Annexure 'C' the petitioner was put in possession of the said land. It was a term lease for 60 years under which the petitioner was permitted to put up a construction. The petitioner has constructed a multi-storied complex thereon as per the plan sanctioned by the Corporation. None of the clauses in the lease deed positively state that the building to be erected on the demised land would be in the ownership of the Corporation. There was no impediment in the way of the parties to have had a clause in a positive form to that effect. In the absence of such a clause, it cannot be said that the Corporation is the owner of the building. By virtue of the doctrine of dual ownership, the petitioner has become the owner of the building. The petitioner has not violated any of the conditions of the lease. The lease of the building by the petitioner in favour of third parties did not amount to sub-letting as the lease hold property was only the land. On this ground, the Corporation cannot evict the petitioner from the land and the building in question. On the expiry of the period of lease, the building constructed by the petitioner will vest with the Corporation free from all encumbrances. If the petitioner violates any of the terms of the lease insofar as the land is concerned, it can be evicted from the land and the building notwithstanding the un-expired period of lease. 34. In the instant case, the premises let out by the petitioner is the super structure which is not a public premises. It belongs to the petitioner. The expression 'premises' or 'public premises' are not defined in the General Clauses Act. The object of Public Premises Act is to provide for a speedy remedy for eviction of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15080 WP No. 57208 of 2018 the unauthorised occupants from public premises. When the expression 'public premises' has not been defined in the General Causes Act, it is unnecessary to import the definition of the expression 'immovable property' into the Public Premises Acts.” 8. A perusal thereof would support the contention and arguments of learned counsel Sri LM Chidanandaya in as much as this Court has categorically held that the superstructure put up by the lessee from and out of his own funds would not be a public premise within the meaning and definition of the Public Premises Act. If that be so, the said judgment having attained finality, the same would be equally applicable to the present case, there being no requirement to reinterpret the law. 9. In that view of the matter, no ground being made out, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1