Sri. B.C Gopala Reddy vs. The Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, Sri. B.C. Gopala Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice and an order passed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) regarding lease payments for a premises. The lease deed, dated 11.08.2006, stipulated a monthly rent of Rs. 29,000/- with a 10% increase every two years. The appellant contended that he had paid rents as per the lease deed and that the amounts claimed by the BDA, which escalated from Rs. 17,83,825/- to Rs. 42,65,746/- including interest, GST, and other charges, were incorrect. The BDA, however, argued that all payments made by the appellant were credited, but the appellant was irregular in payments and the interest at 18% on unpaid amounts was correctly calculated. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, finding the appellant's submissions to be incorrect and amounting to an abuse of process.
Held
The High Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, finding no reason to differ. The Court noted that the appellant's contention of having paid rent at Rs. 29,000/- per month from the lease commencement until 2019 was incorrect, as it failed to account for the stipulated 10% annual increase every two years. The Court concluded that the appellant's pleadings and arguments amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court and that he had not approached the Court with clean hands. Consequently, the Court declined to delve into the arithmetic calculations of the disputed amounts, stating it was not the function of constitutional courts. The appellant's refusal to express willingness to pay the actual amounts due, even at the appellate stage, further solidified the Court's decision. The writ appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellant's pleadings and submissions before the learned Single Judge, regarding the payment of rent as per the lease deed dated 11.08.2006, were factually correct and did not constitute an abuse of the process of the Court? (Question of fact and law, concerning the interpretation of the lease deed and the appellant's conduct). Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that the BDA's calculation of dues was improper, highlighting the escalation of the claimed amount and requesting the BDA to place proper statements on record. The appellant maintained that payments were made as per the lease deed, including the annual rent of Rs. 3,48,000/- from 2008 to 2019. Respondents/BDA: Contended that all payments made by the appellant were credited and that the appellant was irregular in payments. They asserted that the calculation of the demanded amount, including 18% interest on unpaid amounts, was accurate as per the lease deed.
Sections Cited
Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge non-suiting the appellant on the ground that he is not entitled to exercise of discretional juri iction of NC: 2024:KHC:36537-DB this Court since the submissions made by him in the writ petition establishes malafides and amounts to abuse of process of Court.
Learned Single Judge has refused to exercise juri iction vested under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner therein, who has come to the Court claiming that he has made payments in accordance with lease deed dated 11.08.2006 is clearly incorrect going by his own pleadings. The learned Single Judge found that the lease deed entered into on 11.08.2006 provided for payment of monthly rent of Rs.29,000/- which was to be increased every two years by 10%. The specific pleading of the appellant/petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that from 2006 to 2011, the appellant/petitioner had made the payment of entire rents as provided in the lease deed. It was further contended that the demand notice issued to the petitioner as well as the order passed by the respondents on 10.02.2020, were illegal and the amounts claimed were also incorrect. NC: 2024:KHC:36537-DB
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the payment made by the appellant towards the rent has not been properly calculated and given credit to by the respondents.
It is contended that even going by the calculations of the BDA, they had collected an amount of Rs.56,65,042/- and that in notice dated 06.01.2020 issued to the appellant/petitioner initially, the claim raised was for Rs.17,83,825/- in respect of the premises. The respondents have claimed for an amount of Rs.41,22,676/- by adding additional interest, GST and other charges. Further, in the final demand notice dated 10.02.2020, the total amount claimed is Rs.42,65,746/- as against the earlier alleged claim of Rs.17,83,825/-. It is therefore contended that the respondents should be called upon to place proper statements on record.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that all amounts paid by the appellant have been specifically given credit to as is evident from Annexure - R1. It is stated that after taking the property on lease on 11.08.2006, the first payment was made by the NC: 2024:KHC:36537-DB petitioner only on 24.03.2007 and that he was never regular in the payment as claimed by him. It is contended that the entire amounts paid by the appellant has been given credit to. However, since the lease deed specifically provided for 18% interest on unpaid amounts, the said rate of interest has been calculated by the respondents and after giving credit to all the amounts paid, the amount has been arrived at and demanded.
We notice that the appellant/petitioner in the writ petition as well as in this appeal before this Court has specifically pleaded that amount the appellant has to pay as monthly rent is Rs.29,000/- per month and that it comes to Rs.3,48,000/- per year. His specific contention even in this appeal is that from 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2011, he has paid rent at the rate of Rs.3,48,000/- per year. It is adding up those amounts as is evident from paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the writ appeal that he contends that an amount of Rs.3,48,000/- per year has been paid till 30.09.2019. 8. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the contentions raised with regard to the payment of rent in the writ petition itself. Learned Single Judge came to the NC: 2024:KHC:36537-DB conclusion that what has been paid by the appellant was rent at the rate of Rs.29,000/- per month from the date of entering into the lease deed till 2019. It was found that the contention that he had paid the rent as provided in the lease deed was an incorrect submission since what was paid was only Rs.29,000/- per month which is not taking note of the enhancement of 10% increase every two years and that the pleadings placed on record and the arguments raised by the appellant/petitioner would amount to abuse of process of Court.
In the light of the contentions raised in the appeal also, we are not inclined to differ from the findings of the learned Single Judge. In the light of the contentions raised, we are of the opinion that the non-suiting of the appellant/petitioner on the ground that he had not approached this Court with proper pleadings and with clean hands cannot be found fault with.
Having considered the contentions advanced, we are not inclined to enter into any of the arithmetic calculations as raised in this writ appeal. It is not the function of constitutional Courts to enter into the factual disputes between NC: 2024:KHC:36537-DB the parties. We are of the clear opinion that in case the appellant was seeking indulgence of this Court, he should have at least expressed his willingness to pay the actual amounts due under the lease deed which he refuses to do even at the appellate stage. In view of the specific findings as stated above, the writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.