IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NOS.3515-3516 OF 2018 (GM-PP) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHIVE GOWDA SON OF PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI. LAKSHMI CHANNAKESHAVA PROVISION STORE OLD BUS STAND, B.M.ROAD CHANNARAYAPATTANA HASSAN DISTRICT – 573116 2. SRI. NAGARAJU SON OF CHANNAVEERA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ADDRESS: No.1, B.M.ROAD AMBIKA NAGAR CHANNARAYAPATTANA HASSAN DISTRICT – 573116 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K. N. SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHANNARAYAPATTANA CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573116 2. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHANNARAYAPATTANA CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573116 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. N. KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2018 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION Nos.3419- 3420 OF 2018; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Appellants herein are the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.3419-3420 of 2018. They are referred to as per their rank before the learned Single Judge.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Petitioners were tenants of different premises belonging to the respondents. In pursuance of the agreement executed between the petitioners and respondent No.2, the tenancy of petitioners came to an end long ago. Tenancy of the petitioners continued from time to time by the respondent No.2 through its resolution on conditions for enhancement of rent at the rate of PWD and market value prevailed in the office of Sub-Registrar, Hassan. Respondent No.2 tried to evict the petitioners from its premises and issued a notice calling upon them to vacate the premises in their possession to enable the respondent No.2 to auction the leasehold rights of the said premises. Petitioners called in question the legality and correctness of the said notice in Writ Petition Nos. 59254-59304 of 2015 before this court.
This court vide order dated 11.02.2016 dismissed the writ petitions. While dismissing the writ petitions, this court observed in para-11 as under:
“As stated above, the petitioners were inducted as a tenants and the period of tenancy has come to an end long ago. However, they continued to be in possession of the premises. they cannot be thrown out from the premises without due process of law. It cannot be denied that they are unauthorized occupants of the premises as defined under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974. No steps have been taken by the TMC to evict them under this Act. Therefore, the respondent-TMC is restrained from illegally evicting the petitioners from the premises in question and that they shall be evicted only in accordance with law.”
As per the order of this court, respondents issued notice on 06.09.2016, under Section 4(1) of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (‘the Act’ for short), to the petitioners calling upon explanation, if any. The petitioners have not submitted any reply to the said notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Respondent No.1 passed eviction order on 01.10.2016, under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Act and directed the petitioners to handover the vacant possession of the respective premises within 45 days from the date of order. Petitioners questioned the eviction order dated 01.10.2016, in M.A.Nos.12 to 35 of 2016 and 37 to 83 2016 (M.A.No.69 of 2016) and M.A.Nos.84 to 104 of 2016 and 106 to 110 of 2016 (M.A.No.109 of 2016) before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan. The learned District Judge, vide order dated 02.01.2017, dismissed the appeal and maintained the eviction order.
Petitioners challenged the eviction order dated 01.10.2016 passed by the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition Nos.26313-319 of 2018 connected with 49200-49202 of 2017,. 2790-2819 of 2017, 11276-
11318 of 2017 and 3419-3420 of 2018, before this court. This court vide common order dated 10.07.2018, dismissed the writ petitions and granted 6 months time to quit, vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule shop premises to respondent No.2 without directing them to execution proceedings, subject to payment of double the license fee by way of damages which they are paying for the remaining 6 months.
Petitioners aggrieved by the common order dated 10.07.2018, have filed the present writ appeals.
3. Heard arguments of the learned counsels and perused the records.
4. Mr. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Estate Officer has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order and he has not assigned proper reasons.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order.
6. The petitioners are in occupation of different premises belonging to the respondent No.2. It is the public property and the lease has come to an end by afflux of time. The petitioners sought for renewal of lease period, but their request was rejected by this court in Writ Petition Nos.59254-59304 of 2015. The petitioners cannot seek for a renewal of lease in view of the order passed by this court. As per the order of this court, the respondent No.2 initiated eviction proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act.
7. The petitioners have not submitted reply to the said notice. When the petitioners have not replied to the eviction notice, the Estate Officer has no other option, except to accept the contents of the notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and to pass an order of eviction. When the contents of the notice has not been replied by the petitioners, the question of assigning reasons by the Estate Officer, would be meaningless. The petitioners have no right to be in occupation of the premises after the expiry of lease period. The petitioners, after the expiry of lease period continued in possession of the premises unauthorizedly, even though Municipal Council has not extended or renewed the lease. This court while dismissing Writ Petition Nos.59254- 304 of 2015 vide order dated 11.02.2016, has held that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants of the premises, as defined under the provisions of the Act. The said finding has attained finality. The petitioners have not challenged the said findings. When the petitioners are in occupation of public premises unauthorizedly, they have to be evicted under the provisions of the Act. The respondent No.2 has rightly initiated eviction proceedings under the said Act. The Estate Officer has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the premises. The said order was affirmed by the Appellate Court and by this court.
8. The Act was a special legislation enacted to provide for a speedy remedy for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. The Act specifies as to when persons can be classified as unauthorized occupants, the procedure to evict unauthorized occupants, officers competent to declare persons as unauthorized occupants, provides for recovery of rent or damages and also confers onto the State, the power to make Rules to further the objects of the Act.
9. Section 2(e) of the Act defines the term public premises as “any premises belonging to or allotted to State Government or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State Government.” The definition includes “any premises belonging to or taken on lease by on behalf of a local authority.” It is clear from the definition of public premises that the premises in question in the instant case are indeed public premises for the purposes of the Act for they belong to the Town Municipal Council, Channarayapatna and have allegedly been taken on lease by the petitioners.
10. Another relevant provision to be noticed is Section 2(g) of the Act which defines ‘unauthorized occupation’ as the “occupation by any person of the public premises, without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.” However, for a person to be an unauthorized occupant within the meaning of the Act, such person has to be determined to be an unauthorized occupant in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of the Act.
11. A perusal of the above-referenced provision reveals that for a person to fall within the definition of the term ‘unauthorized occupant’, such person must (1) occupy or continue to occupy public premises;
(2) such occupation or continuation of occupation must be without authority or must continue after such authority has expired.
This court, in the impugned order and also in the order passed by this court in Writ Petition Nos.59254-304 of 2015 dated 11.02.2016, has held that the petitioners are occupying the public premises unauthorizedly after the expiry of lease period.
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners have not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
Order The writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RD