( 1 ) THE petitioners are carrying on business in the name and style of Bajrang Auto Electric at Rajkot. It is their case that they took on lease a shop from its owner R. R. Engineering Works Rajkot on 1-1-1985. It was an oral lease. Subsequently on 28 they executed a rent note setting out the terms and conditions of the lease. Since 1-10-1985 they are in continuous possession of the shop as a tenant. On 17-12-1987 officers of the respondent-Corporation came to their shop and told petitioner No. 2 to vacate that shop and hand over possession immediately. On a request made by petitioner No. 2 time was given to him to consult his Advocate. Petitioner No. 2 then locked the shop and went to consult his Advocate When he returned he found that the lock was broken open and another lock was applied in its place. The petitioners on making an inquiry came to know that the said look was applied by the officers of the Corporation. They further came to know thereafter that their landlord R. R. Engineering Works had taken a loan from the respondent-Corporation and at that time agreed not to let or transfer its industrial establishment for which the loan was taken and as their landlord had not repaid the loan is agreed the Corporation had taker the said action. The action of the Corporation of taking over possession of the shop is challenged in this petition on the ground that neither under the agreement entered into between the Corporation and the owner of the premises nor under Sec. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act the Corporation could have lawfully taken over possession in the manner in which it did and that the only manner in which they could have lawfully taken possession from the petitioners was by resorting to the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 or under the ordinary law.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in order to prove their case that they are the tenants of the said shop have produced a copy of a receipt showing payment of rent for the month of October 1985 and a copy of the rent note dated 28 1986

( 3 ) IN their reply. the respondent-corporation has pointed out that on 3/03/1982 it had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 10. 52 lacs to R. R. Engineering Works an industrial concern and Rs. 10. 43 lac have already been disbursed The industrial concern bad repeatedly committed defaults in making repayment and therefore a public advertisement was given on 21-8-1986 inviting offers for sale of its assets. In exercise of the powers under Sec 29 of the Act the Corporation had taken possession of the industrial concern on 17-1-87. Possession of the shop over which the petitioners are now claiming tenancy rights was also taken over in presence of petitioner No. 2. At that time he had not claimed any tenancy right. The fact of attachment of the property of R. R. Engineering Works including the said shop was published in newspapers on 3-2-1987. Thereafter the industrial concern approached the Corporation and promised to repay the dues. The Corporations on 9-2-1987 by way of last opportunity returned possession of the properties attached. The industrial concern however did not honour the commitments made and the cheques issued by it were dishonoured. Under these circumstances the Corporation once again took possession of the properties of the industrial concern including the shop over which the petitioners are now claiming tenancy rights. The Corporation has denied that the petitioners are the tenants of the said shop and that they were not aware of the correct state of affairs before 17-10-1987. It has also denied correctness of the version of the petitioners that the officers of the Corporation had applied their lock in absence of petitioner No. 2. They have raised a contention that this petition should be dismissed as the petitioners have concealed these material facts and made false averments in the petition. It is also their contention that this petition has been filed by the petition