- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46377 WP No. 40227 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 40227 OF 2014 (GM-PP) BETWEEN: INAYATHULLA SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE K.G.AHMED SHARIEF, SHOP NO.5 PORTION OF THE PREMISES OF MOSQUE AND HAZRATH KAMBAL POSH SHA KHADRI AND ALLIED WAKF INSTITUTIONS, H.K.P. (BROADWAY) ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SYEDA SHEHNAZ (NOC)., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DARGAH HAZARATH KAMBAL POSH SHA KHADRI ASTANA-E-HAZRATH KHADAR HUSSAIN AULIA, AND ALLIED WAKF INSTITUTIONS, H.K.P.(BROADWAY) ROAD, BADA MAKAN (WAKFS), SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER KARNATAKA PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT 1974, DARUL AWKAF, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P S MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. NAVEED AHAMED FOR R1) Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46377 WP No. 40227 of 2014 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN M.A.NO.24/2010 DT.1.7.2014 AT ANNX-Q AND THE ORDERS PASSED BY R-2 DT.16.2.2010 AT ANNX-O. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Order dated 01.07.2014 in M.A.No.24/2010 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru (Annexure-Q) and the Order dated 16.02.2010 (Annexure-O) passed by the respondent No.2. 2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this petition are that, the petitioner claims to be a tenant under Respondent no.1 since 1975 and is having the business of sale of Arms and Ammunition under the name of K.G.N Armoury and Engineering Works. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner has obtained licence from Statutory Authorities to run business in the schedule premises. It is further stated that, the petitioner being a tenant under Respondent No.1 is paying rent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46377 WP No. 40227 of 2014 regularly and there is no arrears of rent is concerned. However, the respondent No.1 has issued the Notice dated 05.01.2009 (Annexure-J) seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question as per the provisions under Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said notice issued by the Respondent No.1 was challenged before the Competent Authority under Section 5(1) of the Act in Case No.PP/181/BNU/2009. The Competent Authority by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Act, by Order dated 16.02.2010 (Annexure-O) directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within 45 days from the date of publication of the order. The said order of the Original Authority was challenged before the Competent Court in M.A.No.24 of 2010. The Competent Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure-Q) dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented the present petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46377 WP No. 40227 of 2014 3. I have heard Smt.Syeda Shehnaz, Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Naveed Ahamed, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.P.S.Malipatil for Respondent No.2. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner was a tenant under Respondent No.1 since 1975 and has obtained a trade licence for the purpose of business of Armoury in the premises in question. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to Section 2(g) of the Act, that, since the petitioner is regularly paying rent to the Respondent No.1, the petitioner cannot be considered as an 'unauthorised occupant' under Section 2(g) of the Act and therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed in MA.No.24/2010 by the Competent Court requires to be set aside in this writ petition. 5. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the finding has been recorded by the learned Trial Judge without considering the fact that, the premises in question is not a 'public premises' and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46377 WP No. 40227 of 2014 6. Per contra, Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that, the Office of the Administrator has been appointed to look after the day-to-day affairs of the Respondent No.1 and the petitioner is in possession of the premises in question despite the Notice of Eviction issued and therefore, sought to justify the action of the respondent No.2. 7. Sri.Naveed Ahamed, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, argued on similar lines and sought to justify the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge in MA No.24/2010. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the writ papers, it would indicate that, the petitioner is a Tenant under the Respondent No.1 since 1975. The Respondent No.1 has issued Notice at Annexure-J dated 05.01.2009 stating that, the petitioner is in possession of the premises in question unauthorisedly and the Respondent No.1 - Premises is a 'Public Premises' under the Act and therefore, the Respondent No.1 has issued Notice at Annexure-J. Pursuant to the same, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46377 WP No. 40227 of 2014 said Notice was considered by the Original Authority under Section 5 of the Act as per Annexure-O dated 16.02.2010 and a finding has been recorded by the said Authority after evaluating the material on record and directed the petitioner herein to vacate the premises in question within 45 days from the date of the publication of the Order. 9. In this regard, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Competent Court in MA No.24/2010 at Annexure Q, wherein the learned Trial Judge after considering the fact that, the premises in question comes within the purview of Section 2(e) of the Act and further after issuance of Notice at Annexure-J, held that the continuation of the petitioner in the premises in question as 'unauthorised occupation'. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the declaration of law made by this court in the case of Madina Masjid, Bangalore vs. Kareemulla Sheriff and another reported in (2007) 3 Kant.L.J 318, I am of the view that, the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, after considering the fact that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the premises in question even after - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46377 WP No. 40227 of 2014 issuance of the notice at Annexure-J, have passed the impugned orders as there is no perversity and therefore, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the Court in MA No.24/2010 is just and proper and no interference is called for in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26