1. In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the notices at Annexures ‘K’ and ‘N’ dated 4.7.2011 and 30.7.2011 respectively issued by the 2nd respondent, to restrain the respondents from demolishing the petition schedule building and for certain other reliefs.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are as under:

The Government of Karnataka had passed an order dated 2.6.1977 permitting the then Administrator of the Corporation of City of Bangalore (now Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike) to lease the land bearing No.38/3 measuring 48 + 35/2 ft. * 150 ft. laying over the drain on the eastern side of Lalbagh Road. Bangalore, by holding public auction. One Sri P.C.Sudharshan was the highest bidder in the auction. He requested the Corporation to transfer the leasehold rights in favour of the petitioner-firm. The Government of Karnataka accorded approval to the Administrator of the Corporation to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner as per the order at Annexure ‘A’ dated 28.7.1980. The Corporation executed a lease deed dated 24.9.1980 (Annexure ‘C’) registered on 25.9.1980 in favour of the petitioner for a period of 60 years for the construction of a building thereon for commercial purpose. Accordingly, the petitioner has put up a commercial complex on the said land. On 19.5.1983, the Corporation granted permission to the petitioner to occupy the building. The petitioner occupied the said building and let out different portions of the building to various tenants. The BBMP has assessed the building for the purpose of levy of property tax on the basis of the rents collected by the petitioner from the tenants.

3. The Zonal Joint Commissioner (West) of the Corporation had issued a notice dated 1.4.2006 terminating the tenancy of the petitioner is respect of the property in question. The petitioner filed a suit O.S.No.2755/2066 on the file of the Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore, for a declaration that the notice is illegal and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. After contest, the suit was decreed by the trial Court on 1.1.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that is has paid the property tax for the years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. It is further contended that it had borrowed loan from Canara Bank, Bangalore, for construction of the commercial complex and has been discharging the loan in installments.

4. It is further contended that petitioner has received a notice at Annexure ‘K’ dated 4.7.2011 whereby the second respondent has called upon it to show cause as to why it should not be evicted from the land and the building constructed thereon be not demolished. The petitioner has sent a reply to the show cause notice as per Annexure ‘L’ dated 11.7.2011. During the pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent has issued yet another notice under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short ‘Public Premises Act’) at Annexure ‘N’ dated 30.7.2011 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be evicted from the petition schedule property within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner has sent a reply to the said notice as per Annexure ‘P’ dated 11.8.2011. The Bangalore Electricity Supply Company has issued a notice as per Annexure ‘Q’ dated 9.8.2011 informing the petitioner that it has to disconnect the power supply to the building in question within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

5. I have heard Sri. K.Suman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhijith A. Harnahalli, learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government passed an Order at Annexure ‘A’ dated 28.7.1980 granting permission to the A