Municipality Can't Forcibly Evict Lessee/Licensee On Expiry Of Lease/License Without Order Of Judicial Or Quasi Judicial Authority: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that on expiry of lease/licence executed by a Municipal Corporation such Corporation cannot forcibly vacate the persons in occupation, but is required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, or Transfer of Property Act.

A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the Secretary, Urban Development Department to instruct all the Corporations, Municipalities coming under its jurisdiction to follow due process of law and not resort to forcible possession of the premises.

The bench gave these directions while allowing a batch of pleas filed by the tenants of Mysuru Municipality, who were forcibly evicted by the respondent officials when they did not vacate the premises allotted to them.

The Court also directed that premises that had been forcibly taken over by the Municipality were required to be handed back to the petitioners within 10 days to enable them to carry on their business until their eviction takes place in a lawful manner.

It also directed the Municipality to pay a compensation of Rs.200 per day to all shopkeepers who were dispossessed, till possession was handed back to them.

The petitioners claimed that they are street vendors and it is to rehabilitate them, these premises had been provided on a monthly rental.

It was submitted that they were forcibly evicted from the premises by officers of the Municipality who had come along with pourakarmikas and police personnel. The officers had removed all material from the shops and locked and sealed the premises, thus depriving the petitioners of their livelihood it was argued.

The corporation opposed the plea saying that the lease period had expired and as such, the petitioners were required to hand over the vacant possession of the premises on such expiry, failing which necessary proceedings had been initiated by the Municipality which was not illegal or contrary to law.

It was argued that only a request was made by the officers of the corporation to the petitioners to handover possession which they had voluntarily handed over, and the premises being locked and sealed led to the Municipality being unable to handover the premises to the successful bidders also on account of the petitioners vending in front of the said shops.

On going through the records, the bench noted that the premises in question have been constructed by using IDSMT funds and that the petitioners have been put in possession of their respective shops by the Municipality where the petitioners are carrying on business of vending fruits and vegetables, cereals or the like, suffice to state that petitioners are all petty traders dealing with day-to-day requirements.

The bench noted that in terms of the Karnataka Grama Panchayat and Panchayathraj (Taluk Panchayat Movable and Immovable Properties Transfer) Rules, 2017, whenever a term of a lease of a shop or premises were to expire, it would but be required for the concerned Municipal Authority to bring it for auction where the current lease/license holder could also participate and if successful, lease/licence could be executed in favour of such persons.

Another option provided is that the lessee/licensee may choose not to participate in the said auction proceedings but could exercise right to first refusal, quoting higher than the bid quoted by the successful bidder or auction purchaser, it observed.

The bench observed: “Once the lease/licence comes to an end, it would be for the lessee/licensee to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the lessor/licensor to the Municipality therein. That not having been done, the only option available to the Municipality is either to invoke the provisions of the T.P. Act for eviction or to invoke the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, to evict the lessee/licensees. The authorities cannot take the law into their own hands and cause forcible eviction of the lessee/licensee but are required to follow the due process of law by initiating necessary proceedings and obtain judicial/quasi-judicial orders for eviction and thereafter enforce the same.”

It rejected the contention of the Municipality that on the expiry of the lease/licence it could evict the lessee/licensee without any particular order of judicial or quasi judicial authority.

It noted that the action taken by the Municipality in bringing crowbars, gathering in strength by making use of police powers, is not one recognized under law, this can only be said to be an abuse of the official powers vested in such officers.

Court noted that the officials of the corporation, in breaking open the locks of the shops, which were in possession of the vendors, had done so in violation of law, as it had not been directed by any judicious authority.

“The State and its instrumentalities are required to be model litigants and are required to follow the due process of law if the State and its Authorities were to act like hooligans. A private litigant could never have acted in the same manner and take law in their own hands. In order to maintain rule of law the State and its instrumentalities would have to follow the law applicable both substantive and procedural," it observed.

Thus, the Court allowed the pleas and directed the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department to conduct an independent inquiry into the matter and take action against the errant officials.

Appearance: Advocates Suman Hegde, P.M.Siddamallappa, for petitioners.

Advocate Geetha Devi for Municipality.

Advocate Mohamed Thahir, for R5

AGA Naveen Chandrashekar for State.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 49

Case Title: K T Suresh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12105 OF 2022 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4167 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 13933 OF 2023.

Click Here To Read/Download Order