- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47374 WP No. 34739 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34739 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: MR. BALAKRISHNA.B.L., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE.LINGEGOWDA, RESIDING AT THALAGODU, NELLIKOTTA VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI AND TALUK-577124, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE) AND: THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KALASA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALASA TOWN AND POST, KALASA TALUK-577124 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.MOHAN K.N., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED.25/10/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-F TO RENEW THE LEASE FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF AT LEAST 5 YEARS IN RESPECT OF COMMERCIAL PREMISES CONSTRUCTED ON SY.NO.385/P, MAVINAKERE GRAMA, KALASA TOWN AND TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47374 WP No. 34739 of 2024 DISTRICT MEASURING EAST TO WEST: (86 PLUS 66)/2 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH: 176 FEET WITH EXISTING SHED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the representation dated 25.10.2024 and renew the lease for a further period of 5 years in respect of the commercial premises in survey No.385/P, Mavinakere grama, Kalasa Town and Taluk, Chikkmagalur District. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to renew the lease for a further period of 5 years at enhanced reasonable rate of rent and to execute a fresh lease deed. 2. (i) The petitioner claims that the respondent had invited tenders to lease out commercial premises belonging to it. Accordingly, the respondent accepted the bid of the petitioner and executed a rental agreement dated 01.11.2019, agreeing to let out the premises for a period of 5 years. The petitioner claims that he had put up a structure by obtaining permission from the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47374 WP No. 34739 of 2024 respondent and is carrying on business. He contends that after the expiry of the lease on 31.10.2024, he requested the respondent to extend the lease period by another 5 years. However, the said representation is not considered and the respondent is now attempting to dispossess the petitioner on the ground that the term has expired. (ii) The petitioner therefore submitted a representation on 25.10.2024 requesting the respondent to renew the lease. The petitioner claims that said representation is not considered and therefore is before this Court seeking the aforementioned reliefs. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner has invested lakhs of rupees for establishing a coffee processing unit. He therefore prays that the lease be extended by another 5 years at enhanced rent. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent, who contends that the petitioner has no locus standi to compel the respondent to renew the lease for another 5 years. It is claimed that the representation of the petitioner dated 29.10.2024 was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47374 WP No. 34739 of 2024 considered by the panchayath and it resolved not to extend the lease. It is also alleged that the petitioner is not regular in paying the rent and after the expiry of the lease on 31.10.2024, he was bound to vacate the premises but has filed this writ petition and obtained an interim stay and is continuing in the premises. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the above contentions and contended that the respondent has taken a decision not to lease the premises in occupation of the petitioner to anyone and that the respondent would use the said premises for its own purpose. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. If the term of the lease has come to an end, the petitioner has no locus standi to compel the respondent to renew the lease. Since it is the case of the respondent that it would henceforth not put up the shop in possession of the petitioner for allotment to any person and that it would use it for its own purposes, the petitioner is bound to quit and deliver vacant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47374 WP No. 34739 of 2024 possession of the shop to the respondent. Consequently, no direction can be issued to the respondent to extend the lease in favour of the petitioner. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24