Karnataka HC orders advocate squatting on leased premises for 14 years to vacate in 60 days

PTI, Aug 28, 2023, 5:25 PM IST

Representative image (source: Wikimedia Commons)

Bengaluru: An advocate who leased the ground floor of a residential building in 2009 from a friend for a period of three years but continued to squat in it for 14 years has been ordered by the High Court of Karnataka to vacate it within 60 days.

“It is clear that possession was delivered and premium amount of Rs 10,00,000 was paid and the agreement is also for a period of three years and though he took the premises in the year 2009, for about 14 years he is squatting on the property without vacating the premises,” Justice H P Sandesh noted.

The Court then directed advocate L Doreswamy “to quit and vacate the premises within 60 days from the date of this order,” and told the authorities: ”If (he) fails to do so, take the possession in accordance with law.” The owner of the property has been directed to pay the Rs 10,00,000, which was paid as premium at the time of his advocate friend vacating the premises.

Krishnaprasad A approached the High Court after a lower court rejected his application seeking to evict Doreswamy from the premises. He had let out the ground floor of the premises in Malleshwaram in 2009 to his friend and advocate on receipt of a security deposit of Rs 10 lakh. He also claimed a rent of Rs 3,400. Three years late, the advocate, unable to pay the rent, asked him to deduct it from the deposit.

Krishnaprasad,68, approached a trial court in 2016 seeking an order of eviction but Doreswamy approached the Rent Controller who fixed a rent of Rs 21,000 per month. Krishnaprasad claimed that even this was not paid. Krishnaprasad’s challenge against the Rent Controller’s order was dismissed by a Small Causes court. He then approached the high court.

The HC noted the fact that Doreswamy “adopted dilatory tactics to continue in the premises.” The HC said that the trial court failed to take note of Doreswamy’s conduct.

“The very conduct of the respondent is not taken note of by the trial court and also fails to take note of the fact that the respondent is a tenant and he is also a practicing advocate and he indulged in all sorts of efforts made by him and adopted the dilatory tactics to continue in the premises,” the HC said.

Setting aside the order of the lower court, the HC passed the eviction order against Doreswamy.