-y I THE HIGH CYJRT CF K NTKA T BAN3AiOaE Dated this the 18th daj of June, 1998 Before: THE HONBLE ‘. JuSTICE R,V. RAVNDRAN Writ Petition Nos. 29697 to 29699 of 1993 1. M/s. N.S. Girirnaji & Sons (Electricais), Municipal Malige No.2, Nehru Road, Shimo7a, represented by its Partner Sri G,S, Girimaji, s/o late Shivaji Cirimaji; 2, Sri Kuppanna Iyengar, s/c late A. Iyengar, Proprietor, Sri Rama Services, Municipal Malige No.3, Nehru Road, Shimoga; 3, Sri K.S, Vittal Shetty, s/c late Kasala Somanna Shetty, Proprietor, Kasala Somanna & ons,, Municipal Malige No.4, Nehru Reid, Shimoga ,,Petitioners (By Mrs. Prbha R, C r maj, Adv a) Vs I, The State o Karnataka, Department of Municioal AdministratiDn, Vi sweswaraya Towers, Bangalor-1, represented by its ornmi ssioner; 2. The Admtnistrtor himoga—Bhadravathi Corporation, himoga; 3, Commissioner, ShimogaBadravathi Dorooration, Shimoga Respondents (By Sri A, Nagarajappa, AGA, for RI; Sri N,K, Ramesh, dv,, for R2 & R3) Writ Petitions are filed praying to quash the order vide Annexures A—1 to A—V dated 23—5—1992 and Annexures 1)-i and D—2 dated 28-7—1993 as illegal and unsustainable 0 etc. These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in B Group this day, the Court ‘nade the following: ORDER Sri N.K.Ramesh who appears for third respondent 0 also taKes notice for second respondent. Sri A. Nagarajappa, learned AGA, is directed to take notice tor first respondent. 2. The petitioners are the tenants of the third respondent in the municipal buildings (‘bte :— It is stated by the learned counsel for the third respon dent that Shimoga—Bhadravathi Corporation has now become Shimoga City Municipal Council) ach of the petitioners were paying rent ot s 496 /— per month. The third respondent issued en&rsements dated 23—5—1992 (Annexure s—Al to A3) to the peti tioners increasing the rent from .496/ to .2OOO/— per month with etfect from 1—10—1991 to 30-9—1994. On th€ basis of such retrospective increase, peti tioners were required to pay a sum of Rs.15,008/—, Rs.16,000/— and Rs.15 0 704/— respectively as at the end of 31—5—1992. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners h / 4. filed their objections as per Annexures ‘B and pointing out that they had taken the premises on a monthly rert of .4O/ in the year 1952 and the same had bn increased from time to time to Rs.496/— and when that was so, there was absolutely no justification for suddenly increasing the rent to Rs.2,000/— per month. In reply t of the pettioners have received enrsements dated 23—71993 (Annexures—Di and D2) stating that it was not possible to reduce the rent of Rs.2,OOO/ Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed these petitions for quashing AnnexuresAl to A3 and Di and 2. rhey have also sought a direction to the respondents to refund the increased rent which has already been paid or alternatively to adjust the same towards the future rents. 3. The Municipality is the lessor and the petitioners axe the lessees. The agreed rent is Rs.496/—. The rent for the leased premises cannot be increased unless it is agreed to by the tenant The Municipality has no power to unilaterally increase the rent in the absence of a provision for such increase either in the karnataka Municipalities Act or in the contract between the parties. It is not the case of the respondents that there is any such power either under t Karnataka Minicipalities Act or under any contract between the parties. In fact 1 the Municipality has not referred to or relied on any such provision or contract for increasing the rent. In the absence of any statutory provi sion or contract 1 the Municipality could not have increased the rent muchiess increase it by nearly 400%. If the Municipality wanted an increase 1 the appropriate course was to ld negotiations with the tenants for a reasonable increase. In fact 1 the petitioners have stated that they are agreeable for any reasonable increase having regard to the market conditions and other circum stances. The demand for increase is without authority of law and olly arbitra.I 0 c/A, - ft QCV ts L 4. ence, these petitions are allowed and AnnexuresAi to A3 0 Dl and D2 axe quashed, The third respondent is directed to receive rent of ,496/— per nth unless otherwise incxcased in accordance with iawb 5. Sri A.Nagarajappa 1 learned AGA, is permitted file Memo of Appearance within six weeks, L