The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Competent Officer must provide a reasonable opportunity for the unauthorised occupants to present evidence and be heard before making an eviction order under Sec. 5 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners, who are in possession of certain shops within the precincts of Sri.Doddabasaveswaraswamy Temple, Kurugodu, Ballari District, have impugned the Competent Officer's order under Sec. 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act') and the confirmation thereof in the appeals filed in M.A. Nos.9- 16/2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ballari (for short, 'the Appellate Court').

2. The Competent Officer, the second respondent, by a common order dtd. 6/8/2014 has found that each of the petitioners is an unauthorised occupant of the respective premises and therefore, has directed them to hand over vacant possession such premises. The Appellate Court, while observing that the lease of respective premises is admitted by the petitioners and there is compliance insofar as the procedure with the relevant provisions of the Act, has affirmed the second respondent's order concluding that the petitioners cannot complain of lack of opportunity.

3. The relevant facts are that the first respondent, the Administrative Officer of a notified institution, has permitted the petitioners to occupy certain open spaces under unregistered deeds granting them permission to put up construction and use such constructed premises on terms. The terms stipulated include a cap on the expenses to be incurred in such construction and the rent free tenure for which the petitioners are permitted to occupy. The petitioners contend that after the initial agreed rent free tenure, each of the petitioners have paid the agreed rent until the first respondent, for obvious reason, refused to receive the rents, and the first respondent asserts that the petitioners have not paid the rents deliberately. In fact, the State has placed on record certain details to substantiate the first respondent's case that some of the petitioners have paid rent until 2012 and not thereafter.

4. Sri. Harsh Desai, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Competent Officer after listing undisputed facts such as the first respondent being a notified institution, has proceeded to conclude that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants without considering each of the petitioners' specific defense. The Competent Officer has conducted the proceedings in a manner that demonstrates complete lack of opportunity that is contemplated under Sec. 5 of the Act.

5. Sri. Harsh Desai emphasizes that the Appellate Court has overlooked these very material circumstances and he also emphasizes that the notice is not as required under Sec. 4 of the Act, nor the impugned order is in the prescribed form under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1980. He draw this Court's attention to the fact that while notice issued refers to certain schedules, the Competent Officer's impugned order does not even have a schedule and the prescribed form mandates that schedule must be mentioned. He submits that this also demonstrates lack of application of mind.

6. Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, the learned Additional Government Advocate, supported by Smt. Suma Yalgur, the learned counsel for the first respondent, submits with reference to the Competent Officer's impugned order that the Competent Officer has elaborately referred to the opportunity extended to the petitioners; the petitioners cannot dispute that their counsel has appeared and filed statement of objections. Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath also canvasses that the petitioners cannot deny that they have not paid agreed rents, and therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the petitioners being unauthorised occupants; as such, the impugned orders are in accordance with law. In fact, both Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath and Smt. Suma Yalgur place reliance on a copy of the agreement of lease executed by one of the petitioners to buttress their submissions.

7. The question for consideration is: whether this Court can opine that the Competent