- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15610 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. DIVYA RAMESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O SRI S M PUNEETH, RESIDING AT NO. 494, 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, LOKANAYAKA NAGARA, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU. AND ALSO CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT D.NO.1351/1, NEW NO. M-15/1, 1ST CROSS KABIR ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU. 2. SRI. S M PUNEETHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O MANJUNATH, RESIDING AT NO. 494, 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, LOKANAYAKA NAGARA, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU. AND ALSO CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT D.NO.1351/1, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 NEW NO. M-15/1, 1ST CROSS KABIR ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V B SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSURU 570 020. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CITIZEN SERVICE CENTER AND ZONAL OFFICE-06, NEW SHESHADRI AYAR ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU 570 020. 3. SRI.S. RAMESH, S/O LATE M SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 57 5TH MAIN ROAD, PARAMAHAMSA ROAD, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU 570 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GAURAV G K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. ARIHANT R. SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FOLLOWING ORDERS.1. NOTICE DTD. 08.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN NO. VA.AA/VA.KA-6/AA-SHAKHE/357/2025-26 WHICH IS AT ANNX-A. 2. NOTICE DTD. 23.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN NO. MY.NA.PA/VA.KA-6/AA-SHAKHE/389/2025-26 WHICH IS AT ANNX-B. 3. FINAL NOTICE DTD. 27.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN NO. MY.NA.PA/VA.KA-6/AA- SHAKHE/357/2025-26 WHICH IS AT ANNX-C. CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE LOCKS PROVIDED TO THE PREMISES AND RESTORE THE POSSESSION FORTHWITH TO THE PETITIONERS. IN THE EVENT RESPONDENTS FAIL TO RESTORE POSSESSION PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO REMOVE THE LOCKS VOLUNTARILY AND UTILIZE THE PREMISES. COST OF THE APPEAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order, quashing the following orders: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 1) Notice dated 08.05.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent in No. Va.Aa/Va.Ka-6/Aa- Shakhe/357/2025-26 which is at ANNEXURE – ‘A’. 2) Notice dated 23.05.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent in No. My.Na.Pa/Va.Ka-6/Aa- Shakhe/389/2025-26 which is at ANNEXURE – ‘B’. 3) Final Notice dated 27.05.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent in No. My.Na.Pa/Va.Ka-6/Aa- Shakhe/357/2025-26 which is at ANNEXURE – ‘C’. b. CONSEQUENTLY, direct the Respondents to remove the locks provided to the premises and restore the possession forthwith to the Petitioners. In the event Respondents fail to restore possession permit the Petitioners to remove the locks voluntarily and utilise the premises. c. Cost of the Appeal.” 2. Petitioners claim to be the tenants of respondent No. 3 in respect of the property bearing No. 1351/1, New number M-15/1. 1st Cross, Kabir Road, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru comprising of 3 floors. The contention of the petitioners is that there being a dispute between the landlord and tenant, the landlord had submitted a complaint with respondent No. 2, who has on the basis of the said complaint, issued notices to the petitioners, called upon the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 petitioners to vacate the premises and had sealed the premises. 3. The submission of Sri. V.B. Shivakumar learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are running the business of lodging house after obtaining due licence from respondent No. 1, such licence could not have been cancelled on the basis of a complaint filed by landlord on account of landlord- tenancy dispute and in this regard he relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Pancharathna Enterprises Vs. The Commissioner, BBMP dated 27.03.2024 in W.P. No. 22657 of 2023, more particularly, paragraphs No. 17 to 21 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for ease of reference: “17. If that were to be so, the imposition of condition such as obtaining of NOC from landlord could at best be construed to be a procedural requirement that cannot be mandatorily insisted upon in the absence of any statutory backing either under the Act or in the rules which are in the nature of delegated legislation. In the absence of such backing in law, restriction on the fundamental - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 right conferred under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India cannot be permitted except on the grounds envisaged under article 19(6) viz., in the interest of general public. Prima facie the insistence on NOC from landlord would not fall into the category of permissible restriction envisaged under article 19(6). Accordingly, the insisting on obtaining of NOC cannot be construed to be a mandatory requirement. 18. Insofar as the inter se disputes between the partners, it is stated that the matter is a subject matter of resolution in arbitration proceedings in A.C.No.517/2023 and the said dispute is an extraneous factor vis-a-vis the claim of the petitioner firm for issuance of trade licence made to respondent BBMP. 19. Needless to state the outcome of the arbitration proceedings between the landlord and the petitioner and the partners inter se may have a bearing on the right of the petitioner to carry on business and such contingency would arise only when the proceedings referred to above reach a legal finality. 20. Accordingly, while this court does not intend to interfere with the conclusion of the order at Annexure-M, however, in light of the discussion made above, the premise in the order at annexure M is set aside. Request for renewal or a fresh licence as the case may be, may be considered without reference to the NOC from the landlord. 21. In light of discussion made above, once the request for renewal/issuance of fresh licence is considered in the affirmative, the sealing establishment at Annexure-M would stand set aside.” 4. By relying on Pancharathna Enterprises case, his submission is that imposing a condition of obtaining - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 NOC from the landlord when there is a landlord tenancy dispute for the purpose of a license to be granted by the corporation would be violative of Article 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as such restrictions can be only imposed under Article 19(6). The insistence of the NOC would not fall within any of the categories under Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India and as such, in the present case on the basis of a complaint filed by a landlord the respondents could not have issued the impugned notices and sealed the premises. 5. Sri. Arihant R. Sungay learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that it is not only the complaint which has been lodged by respondent no. 3 which has been considered, the neighbours of the lodging house have also made a police complaint alleging that the premise is used for illegal activities for betting, gambling etc., and on that basis, the jurisdictional police had directed respondents No. 1 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 and 2 to take necessary action and in pursuance thereof, that Annexures A, B and C have been issued. 6. His submission also is that apart from Annexures - A, B and C, an order cancelling the license on the very same date has not been brought to the notice of this Court and therefore there is a suppression of material facts which has resulted in passing of the interim order and as such he submits that the petitioners are not entitled for any equitable consideration. 7. His submission is also that the agreement to lease which has been entered into between the petitioners and respondent No. 3 being for a period of 11 months having expired, the petitioners could not continue the business inasmuch as he has no right to continue in the occupation of the premises. On all the above bases he submits that the decision in Pancharathna's case would not be applicable and the action taken by the respondents may not be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 interceded with. He further submits that the petitioners are not making payment of due rentals to respondent No.3 and as such are not entitled for equitable consideration. 8. Sri. Gaurav G. K. learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would submit that a complaint filed with the police by the neighbours, the police have forwarded the same to the corporation. The Landlord claiming that the lease has come to an end and that the possession of the tenant is unlawful. The official respondents have taken action in issuance of the aforesaid notices and sealing the premises since the possession is unlawful and no business could be carried out. 9. Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in rejoinder would submit that the petitioners have been making payment of the due rentals and would continue to make payment of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 due rentals month on month to respondent no. 3 and if respondent no. 3 was not to receive the same, to deposit it in the pending commercial suit in O.S. No. 178/2025 pending before the Principal District & Sessions Court, Mysuru. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the records. 11. The Lease deed which has been produced by the petitioners dated 06.04.2024 is neither a registered document nor properly stamped. Be that as may, the lease is for a period of 11 months which expired in the month of March 2025. Though the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the lease has expired is correct, for respondent No. 3 to secure the possession, a suit in O.S. No. 178/2025 has been filed by respondent no. 3. It is trite law that on the expiry of the lease, the possession does not - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 become unlawful immediately on the expiry, it is required for the landlord to initiate such proceedings for recovery of possession. Until such order is passed, the tenant would continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. In that background, I am of the considered opinion that respondent No. 3 could not have called upon respondents No. 1 and 2 to intercede in the matter and cancel the license issued to the petitioners on the ground that the lease has expired. 12. As held by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Pancharathna Enterprises case (supra), there is no need even for NOC from the landlord to be provided for obtaining of any licence. Hence, the question of on the basis of objection by the landlord to cancel the licence already issued would also not arise. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 13. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that respondents No. 1 and 2 did not have any jurisdiction to intercede in the matter and issue the notices as sought to be issued on the basis of the complaint filed by landlord who had alleged that the petitioners had not vacated the premises. 14. Insofar as the grievance of respondent No. 3 that the rents are not being paid, the same is answered by the submission of Sri. V. B. Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners that the payments would be made to the landlord month on month as per the terms of the expired lease deed. Including all arrears with interests. 15. The submission of Sri. V.B. Shivakumar that the entire arrears along with interest in terms of the expired lease deed would be paid within a period of 30 days from today and his further submission that going forward the applicable rent would be paid - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 month on month to the petitioners by transferring it to the bank account through RTGS/NEFT, answers the said grievance of the petitioners. 16. Insofar as complaints submitted by third parties are concerned, that is not the basis on which action has been taken by respondents No. 1 and 2 in the present matter and as such those complaints need not be gone through by this Court. However, liberty is reserved to respondents No. 1 and 2 to act on any such complaints in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Notice dated 08.05.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent in No. Va.Aa/Va.Ka-6/Aa- Shakhe/357/2025-26 which is at ANNEXURE –‘A’; Notice dated 23.05.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent in No. My.Na.Pa/Va.Ka- 6/Aa-Shakhe/389/2025-26 which is at - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4925 WP No. 15610 of 2025 ANNEXURE –‘B’ and Final Notice dated 27.05.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent in No. My.Na.Pa/Va.Ka-6/Aa-Shakhe/ 357/ 2025-26 which is at ANNEXURE –‘C’ are quashed. (iii) The locks having already been removed and the petitioners continuing to be in business, no order in this regard are to be passed. (iv) The application filed by the petitioners for renewal of the licence to respondents No. 1 and 2 is directed to be considered by respondent No. 2 and orders passed thereon within 30 days from date of receipt of a copy of this order. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE BVK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0