KARNATAKA FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Vs. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are by the plaintiffs in the suits filed to pass declaratory decree(s) that the communication(s) of the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA') vide (Exs.P9 to P44) as illegal and for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants BDA and its Officers, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule shop premises. For convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the plaintiffs' and 'the defendants'.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed 41 separate suits in respect of the shop premises situated in Austin Town and Indiranagar Shopping Complexes of the BDA. The plaintiffs having occupied the respective shop premise(s) by virtue of the licence(s) issued by the BDA, are carrying on business therein. The BDA having served notices vide Exs.P9 to P44, the suits were filed contending that they are 'the lessees' and being in settled position are not liable to be dispossessed otherwise than in a manner known to law. It was contended that the only course open to the defendants is to follow due process of law i.e. institute suit(s) for ejectment, after determination of the tenancy of the plaintiffs or by filing suit(s) for possession after revocation of the so called licence(s).

(3.) The defendants filed written statement(s) and contended that the BDA is a statutory authority and that it functions in accordance with the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short 'BDA Act') and the BDA Rules, 1975. It was stated that the BDA allotted the shop premises to the plaintiffs by way of licence i.e., to use the shops for the purpose of conducting business. It was further stated that the plaintiffs have executed the 'deed(s) of licence' and are in occupation as licensee(s). It was submitted that in view of the decision of the BDA to demolish the existing commercial complexes and reconstruct the same, the licence(s) issued to the plaintiffs were determined in terms of clause 24 of 'deed(s) of licence'. It was stated that the licence period has expired and the occupation of the plaintiffs is unauthorized. The plaintiffs were notified vide Ex.P9 to P44 to vacate the shop premises which are in their respective occupation. Other defences were also raised including the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to serve notice under S.64 of the BDA Act and dismissal of the suit(s) was sought.