S.L. Prasad vs The State of Karnataka

Heard Sri. L. Govindaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Government Advocate for respondents.

The unsuccessful petitioner in W. P. No. 48721/2004, decided by the learned single Judge on 24.11.2007, has preferred this Writ Appeal u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The appellant/ petitioner had approached the Writ Court by filing a Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashment of the stipulation as to the payment of non-refundable goodwill sum under the Government order dated 11.4.2001 (Annexure-D).

A thumb nail sketch of the facts of the case is as under: The appellant is in possession and occupation of a certain immovable, property belonging to the Muzarai Department, under a least, which stood terminated by efflux of time on 14.8.1985. Admittedly, the appellant is carrying on his business activities from the said piece of land. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 24.11.2007, imposed a condition on the appellant to pay goodwill sum in respect of the premises belonging to the Muzarai Department in the event of a fresh renewal. According to the appellant, lease was extended for a period of five years from 1.7.1985 on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 600/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 900/- from 1.10.1987. After the expiry of the period of lease, the respondents initiated action against him (the appellant) during the year 2001 -02 to recover possession of the premises under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974.

We have been given to understand that the said proceedings arc still pending. According to the appellant, the respondents had no right to ask for goodwill sum as a condition precedent for renewal of lease, Learned Single Judge considering the matter from all angles, thereafter, came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant/petitioner which came to be dismissed. Hence this Writ Appeal

After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the records, we find that there is no merit and substance in the Writ Appeal. Admittedly, the Government is the owner of the land, initially leased out to the appellant. The period of lease is already over and for renewal of the lease, the respondents are justified to put conditions enumerated in Annexure-D. Non-refundable goodwill charged by the respondents on account of the location of the site, which has a potential commercial value cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. Therefore, we find no justification to interfere with the order of the learned single judge nor we find that such a condition cannot be imposed by the State. Different rates are fixed for the areas as shown in the Table at Annexure-D, which cannot be termed as exorbitant or excessive.

The Appeal being devoid of merits and substance, is dismissed but with no order as to costs.