- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.104649 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNCIPAL CORPORATION R/BY ITS COMMISSIONER …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUDAS KANNUR SR. COUNSEL REP SRI. G I GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI AKTARHUSSAIN S/O KHALANDARSAHEB DASANKOPPA AGE 64 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O HALIYAL ROAD, (NEAR GOVT SCHOOL) SAPTAPUR DHARWAD 08 2. SHRI EZAZHUSSAIN S/O KHALANDARSAHEB DASANKOPPA AGE 62 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O HALIYAL ROAD, (NEAR GOVT SCHOOL) SAPTAPUR DHARWAD 08 3. SHRI SHOUKATHHUSSAIN S/O KHALANDARSAHEB DASANKOPPA AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O HALIYAL ROAD, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 (NEAR GOVT SCHOOL) SAPTAPUR DHARWAD 08 4. SHRI MUJEEB S/O KHALNDARSAHEB DASANKOPPA AGE 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O HALIYAL ROAD, (NEAR GOVT SCHOOL) SAPTAPUR DHARWAD 08 5. SHRI JAVEED S/O KHALANDARSAHEB DASANKOPPA AGE 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O HALIYAL ROAD, (NEAR GOVT SCHOOL) SAPTAPUR DHARWAD 08 6. SHRI SHAHID S/O KHALANDARSAHEB DASANKOPPA AGE 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O HALIYAL ROAD, (NEAR GOVT SCHOOL) SAPTAPUR DHARWAD 08 7. SHRI RAJU S/O UTTAM PALANKAR AGE 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. SHIVAPUR COLLONY DHARWAD-08 DEVENDRAPPA S. MARALAPPANAVAR DECEASED BY HIS LR’s 8. PREMA W/O DEVENDRAPPA MARALAPPANAVAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O SHIVAPPA CHAWL, 11TH CROSS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 MARATHA COLONY, DHARWAD-08. 9. SMT ASHWINI W/O ANIL S HALASUR AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O NAMITHA COMPUTER INSTITUTE AND SPOKEN ENGLISH TRAINING CENTER NO.49, S.V.COMPLEX, JAMBI SWARI DINNE BYARAPPA CIRCLE-08. 10. SMT MANJULA S/O MANJUNATH JANAMATTI AGED 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O VIVEKANAND NAGAR, 12TH CROS, PLOT NO.20, NEAR TUPAD CLINIC GOKAK 591307 11. SHRI MRITUNJAYA S/O DEVENDRAPPA MARALAPPANAVAR AGED 42 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL BUSINESS R/O SHIVAPPA CHAWL 11TH CROSS, MARATHA COLONY, DHARWAD-08 12. SMT ARUNA A TUPPAD C/O TUPPAD CLINIC AGED 38 YEARS, R/O VIVEKANAND NAGAR 12TH CROSS, GOKAK 591307 DIST: BELAGAVI. 13. SRI GURUPADAPPA SHIVAPPA MARALAPPANAVAR AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O KRISHNA BOARDING AND RESTAURANT VIVEKANAND CIRCLE MARKET, DHARWAD R/O SHIVAPPA CHAWL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 11TH CROSS, MARATHA COLONY, DHARWAD-08. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL AND SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. M.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. V.M.SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R9; NOTICE TO R8, R10-R13 IS S/D) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1-6-2024 MADE IN O.S NO. 119/2020 (MAIN CASE) (O.S. NO. 118/2020 AND O.S. NO. 63/2020 CLUBBED CASES) ORDER ON I.A. NO. 6 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AND FURTHER ALLOW I.A. NO. 6 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner-HDMC is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Quash the impugned order dated 1.6.2024 made in O.S.No.119/2020 (main case) (O.S.No.118/2020 and O.S.No.63/2020 clubbed cases) order on I.A.No. 6 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad produced as Annexure-M by issue of writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or directions and further allow I.A.No.6; ii. Grant such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the present case including an order for costs may kindly be passed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 2. The HDMC claims to be the owner of the lands in CTS No.442/B1/MF, CTS No.442/B2/MF and CTS No.443/1/MF; all of which are adjoining each other and situated at Subhash Road, Vivekanand Circle, Market Fort Area, Dharwad. The said properties were leased by the HDMC to one Sri.Khalandar Wallad Mehaboobsaheb Dasankoppa by the Municipal borough under a Registered Lease Deed dated 24.9.1954 for a period of 99 years on certain conditions. It is contended that the lease was personal in nature and could not be assigned in any manner whatsoever. After the death of the aforesaid original lessee, the names of his legal representatives, who are defendants No.1 to 6 in O.S.No.119/2020 pending on the file of 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dharwad were entered into in the CTS extract as lessees on account of devolution of the lease on hereditary basis. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 3. It is alleged that the said defendants No.1 to 6, have illegally and unlawfully without any right sold/assigned the leasehold rights under a sale deed dated 19.6.2010 to defendant No.7 therein who is respondent No.7 herein; the same being styled as a sale deed. Contending that the defendants No.1 to 6 who are respondents No.1 to 6 herein could not execute such sale deed and that the same has no legal sanctity which would amount to a breach of the lease condition of the lease deed dated 24.9.1954, the Corporation has a right to forfeit the lease. The HDMC issued a notice to defendants No.1 to 7 terminating the lease and calling upon them to hand over the possession of the suit properties. 4. Defendants No.1 to 7 are alleged to have given false and evasive replies and did not hand over the possession. In view thereof, the petitioner-HDMC filed two suits in O.S.No.118/2020 and another in O.S.No.119/2020 before the 3rd Additional Civil - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 Judge (Junior Division) Dharwad seeking for vacant possession of the suit property. The HDMC also sought for declaration that the alleged sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 6 in favour of defendant No.7 is illegal null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. 5. Service having been effected, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement. It is then that the HDMC came to know of defendant No.7 having filed a suit for possession in O.S.No.78/2013 against the husband of defendant No.8 therein who is a sub-tenant of the original tenant Sri.Khalandar Wallad Mehaboobsaheb Dasankoppa, which has been decreed and confirmed in R.A.No.10/2019. The sub- tenants having filed a second appeal in RSA No.100711/2019, the same was withdrawn. 6. It is in that background that the HDMC filed an application in I.A.No.6 under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for deposit of rent by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 defendants No.8 to 13 who are the sub-tenants before the Trial Court. The said application came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated 1.6.2024 on the ground that the HDMC has neither averred in the plaint nor prayed for any amount in the plaint. There being no pleading regarding any amount, such an order could not be granted. The Trial Court further observed taking note of the decree in O.S.No.78/2013, defendants No.8 to 13 would have to pay the arrears of rent and future rent to defendant No.7 which has been confirmed and as such, no direction could be issued to defendants No.8 to 13 to make payment of any rentals to the petitioner-HDMC. It is challenging the said order that the petitioner-HDMC is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 7. Sri.Gurudas Kannur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the rentals which are being paid by defendants No.8 to 13 (respondents - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 No.8 to 13) to respondent No.7 (defendant No.7), defendant No.7 does not have any right, title or interest inasmuch as the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 6 in favour of defendant No.7 is non-est. There being no right on part of defendant No.7 to collect any rentals, the rentals would have to be paid only to HDMC and as such, he submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is not proper and is required to be set aside. 8. Sri.M.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that respondent No.7 has not received any rentals. In pursuance of the judgment in RSA No.100711/2019, execution proceedings have been filed by defendants No.7 against respondents No.8 to 13. Respondents No.8 to 13 are depositing the rentals in the execution proceedings in Ex.No.25/2019 and as such, he submits that the deposit having been made in the execution court, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 there could not be any further direction to deposit the rentals in O.S.No.119/2020. 9. He further submits that respondent No.7 having filed eviction proceedings against respondents No.8 to 13, the decree having been passed in favour of respondent No.7 can be enforced by respondent No.7 against respondents No.8 to 13 and as such, he submits that the above petition may be dismissed. 10. Sri.S.S.Beturmath, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 6 submits that the payment of rentals is the responsibility of respondents No.8 to 13 who are the sub-lessees and they had been making payment of those rentals to the HDMC until the assignment made by respondents No.1 to 6 in favour of respondent No.7 and thereafter, the deposit has been made in the execution proceedings. 11. Similar is the submission made by Sri.V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel for respondent No.9. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 13. Admittedly HDMC is the owner of the property. Admittedly HDMC had only leased the property for a period of 99 years to the father of respondents No.1 to 6. Thus, the father of respondents No.1 to 6 only had leasehold right, which is succeeded to by respondents No.1 to 6. The sale as contended by the petitioner and the respondents could only be the sale of the leasehold rights and not sale of the property. The title of the property continuing with HDMC. 14. Insofar the leasehold rights are concerned, respondent No.7 now stepping into the shoes of the original lessee and original lessee has now sought to evict respondents No.8 to 13 who are the sub- lessees of the original lessee. Any such eviction of the sub-lessees would enure to the benefit of the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 HDMC. It therefore cannot be said that respondent No.7 cannot seek for eviction of the sub-lessees. 15. Insofar as the rental is concerned, it is for HDMC to establish the rentals/mesne profits or damages in furtherance of establishing a valid termination of lease and/or forfeiture of the lease. Until the same is done, HDMC would only be entitled to the rentals under the original lease of the year 1954 which would be required to be paid by respondent No.7. Needless to say in the event of the HDMC succeeding in the proceedings for damages/mesne profits or damages, respondent No.7 would also be liable to make payment of the same. Thus at this stage, as rightly held by the Trial Court, there could be no direction to the sub-lessee to deposit the rentals with HDMC which are being deposited in the execution proceedings. The deposit being made in the execution proceedings will enure to the benefit of HDMC also which shall be subject to the result of the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1561 WP No. 104649 of 2024 suit in O.S.No.118/2020 and O.S.No.119/2020. Any judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.118/2020 and O.S.No.119/2020 would be binding on respondent No.7. In that view of the matter, reserving liberty to the petitioner - HDMC to take up all such contentions against respondent No.7 as is available under law, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33