Karnataka High Court
WP/113701/2015 of M/S SANGHVI CYLINDERS PVT. LTD. Vs THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD on 31 December 2015
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY W.P.NOS. 113701- 113702/2015( GM-KIADB) BETWEEN: M/s Sanghvi Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office At Flat No.402, Malati Naik Plaza, Hanumantekdi, Abids,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31[ST]DAY OF DECEMBER Z20LDBEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY|
W.P.NOS. 113/70113702/2015( GMKIADB)
BETWEEN:
M/s Sangnhvi Cylinders Pvt. Ltd.Registered Office At Flat No.402, Malati Naik Plaza, Hanumantekdi,Abids, Hyderabad-500001, Telagana State, Reptd. by itsGeneral Manager Sri.A.N.Nagaraj_Age:53 years, r/o Kakakati, Belagavi.
... PETLTIONER|
(By Sri. T.N. Ragnupatny, Advocate)
AND
1.Tnhe Karnataka Industrial Area Development BoardReptd. by its Managing Director, No.49,4th and 5th Floors, Khanija Bhavan,Race Course Road, Bengaluru O1.
2.1ne Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board,Development officer, Plot no.7/B,B K Kangrali Industrial Area, P B Road, Belagavi.
3. Tne Assistant Executive Engineer( ElectO and M City Sub-Div No-3,HESCOM, Belagavi.
4.Sri.8S.B.Vandakundri, 55 years,
R/at 2812, padmasnhree building,
Manhnantesn Nagar, Belagavi
... Respondents
(By Sri. P.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate for R1 to R3, |
Sri. Sreevatsa S. Hegde, Advocate for R4)
Tnese writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and|22/7 of the Constitution of India praying to quash theCommunication dated:01.09.2015, issued by the 2ndrespondent, as per Annexure-J etc.
These petitions coming on for orders this day, the|Court made the following:-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
These writ petitions coming on for orders onI.A.2/2015, are neard for final disposal.
2. Ine dispute between the petitioner herein and therespondent No.4, who is stated to be the owner of the)premises under the occupation of the petitioner, was taken.for the purpose of storing cylinders. However, the.petitioner intended to carry on incidental activities apart|from storing cylinders from the year 2011. In this regard,|he has sought for additional power supply to the premises. |
3. It is the case of respondent No.4 that he had|rightly conceded and issued a No Objection’ letter to theHESCOM. Thereafter, it transpires that not withstandingsuch permission granted, the respondent No.4 addressed a.jetter to the HESCOM and nad claimed tnat he nad notgiven any sucn permission for additional power supply and)the same be withdrawn, as the petitioner was carrying onunauthorised activities in the premises. Tne HESCOM nad)withdrawn the additional power supply and the business of the petitioner has come to a total stand still. It is in this)background that the present petition is filed.
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the respondent No.4 having complained to|the HESCOM to get the power supply disconnected was.only to force the petitioner to pay additional rent which.was demanded. Tne present rent payable was Rs.25,000/- |p.m., whereas respondent No.4 is claiming Rs.1,50,000/-.|The petitioner in all fairness would concede that the respondent may be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- per montn|from January 2016.
5. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.4.would point out that there is a suit filed Dy him seeking>ejectment of the petitioner and also determination of thearrears payable and the damages for use and occupationof the premises, in view of the termination of tenancy.
6. Therefore, in the present circumstances, withoutprejudice to the suit that is filed by the respondent seekingejectment, the proposed amount to be paid by the.petitioner shall be treated as damages for use andoccupation subject to the final determination in the suitwhich is pending. Further, on the other condition tnat the)respondent without prejudice to the suit issue ansappropriate letter of ° No Objection * to the HESCOM for >power supply which was provided to the petitioner. This is)without prejudice to the suit claim and all contentions.taken herein. |
7. Hence, the submission of the petitioner isrecorded tnat the petitioner will now deposit Rs.1,00,000/- towards use and occupation of the premises from January2016. The respondent No.4 undertakes to comply with this|order in terms as aforesaid. Petitioner also undertakes to |deposit whatever arrears whicn are demanded as rent,before termination of the tenancy, along with a sum of.Rs.1,00,000/- per month in the suit. Since the business of|the petitioner has come to a total standstill, it would be)the responsibility of the respondent No.4 to abide by theundertaking subject to deposit of the amount and provide)such * No Objection’ forthwith. |
Annexure K and N are accordingly set aside.
Petitions are disposed of.
MSU.
Sd/-'
JUDGE