ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.08.2016, passed in M.A.No.33/2011 by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-28), vide Annexure-L and also to quash the impugned notice dated 20.03.2007, issued under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act of 1974'), vide Annexure-C and order dated 19.07.2010, passed under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1974, vide Annexure-E.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

The respondents - Corporation executed a lease agreement on 27.08.1976, in respect of open space bearing No.8, situated at 11th 'A' Cross, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru measuring East-West 58 feet, North-South 58 feet in favour of the petitioner for a period of 30 years. Pursuant to the lease agreement dated 27.08.1976, the petitioner constructed ground floor and 1st floor on the open space and using the same for its office for the benefit of its members. The Government permitted the petitioner - Society to let out the building to an extent of 3770 sq.feet in favour of Karnataka Food & Civil Supplies Department for rent. It is contended that 30% of the rent collected shall be paid to the respondents - Corporation. After the expiry of the lease period, the respondents - Corporation got issued a notice under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1974. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said notice. The petitioner submitted a representation for renewal of lease. The respondents - Corporation did not consider the representation for renewal of lease and hence the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.3300/2008 seeking a direction to renew the lease. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondents - Corporation passed an order under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1974. It is stated that the suit filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 06.04.2011. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of eviction passed under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1974, preferred an appeal in M.A.No.33/2011 on the file of XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-28). The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.08.2016, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal and order of eviction, filed this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no proper enquiry was conducted by the estate officer before passing order under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1974. He also submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation for renewal of lease and the respondents - Corporation has not passed any order on the representation submitted by the petitioner for renewal of lease. He further submits that the petitioner has invested a huge amount for construction of a building with ground and first floors and if the petitioner is directed to vacate the property, the petitioner will incur heavy loss. He submits that the estate officer without considering the said aspect has passed an order of eviction and the said eviction order is contrary to Section 5(1) of the Act of 1974. He further submits that the First Appellate Court without considering the contention raised by the petitioner before it, dismissed the appeal. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the lease agreement was executed in the year 1976 in favour of the petitioner in respect of property in question for a period of 30 years. The said period was expired in the year 2006. After the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner unauthorisedly continued in possession of the property in question. The petitioner falls within the definition of unauthorized occupant as per Section 2(g) of the Act of 1974. He submits that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.3300/2008 for specific performan