Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.:— This second appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S No. 301/2009 before the Additional Civil Judge, Ranebennur, for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur, in RA No. 20/2012. The said appeal was also dismissed by judgement and decree dated 1/12/2014. Aggrieved by the judgement of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff is before this Court in the second appeal.
2. The plaintiff's case is that he has been running a bookshop in the suit property. Since the defendant Municipality tried to take possession of the suit property illegally, he brought the suit for injunction. The defendant contended that the suit property is not a permanent structure, it is a shed put up on the footpath. Since it is causing obstruction to the public at large, it initiated proceedings according to law to evict the plaintiff from the property. Suit is bared according the provision of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974.
3. Both the Courts have held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property on the date of suit. Even issue No. 2, pertaining to interference is answered by the trial Court. Now, the learned counsel argues that the issuance of notice under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act does not mean that action according to that Act has been initiated. Actually, the property does not belong to the Municipality, it belongs to a private person. Therefore, Municipality cannot evict the plaintiff from the suit property.
4. From the judgement of the trial Court, it can be clearly noticed that the plaintiff himself has admitted in the cross examination property is a temporary tin shed. The tin shed is on the footpath causing obstruction, Municipality has all the right to take proper steps. If according to the appellant, the place where he is running a business does not belong to the Muncipality and that it belongs to somebody else, he has every right to take up such defence before the Officer appointed under the Karnataka Public Premise Act and that Municipality has no right to initiate action under the said law. In these circumstances, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for admitting this appeal.
5. Therefore, appeal is dismissed.