Continued occupation after lease expiry constitutes unauthorized occupation, validating eviction under the Public Premises Act.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

This petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated

23.04.2021 passed by the IX Addl. Dist. Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Misc Appeal No.7/2020 which is produced at Annexure-F.

2) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated

28.02.2020 passed by the respondent which is produced at Annexure-D.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Board to extend the period of lease as assured in respect of petition property.

iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction as deemed fit to grant any relief in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the ends of justice.”

2. Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted lease of premises in question by the respondent- Authority. It is submitted that the respondent-Authority assured the petitioner of renewing the lease and based on such assurance, he invested more than Rs.22,00,000/- on renovation of the premises in question. The respondent-Authority did not renew the lease as assured and thereafter, in the year 2019 initiated proceedings for eviction. It is further submitted that on 16.10.2019 the eviction order came to be passed by the Estate Officer which came to be challenged by the petitioner in Misc.Appeal No.35/2019 and the Court remanded the matter back to the Estate Officer with the direction to provide the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the witness and to allow him to produce the documentary evidence. It is also submitted that after remand, the Estate Officer passed the eviction order against the petitioner which was confirmed by the learned District Judge in Misc.Appeal No.7/2020. It is contented that the lease being statutory lease and on determination, the respondent can evict the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) is impermissible. It is further contended that the respondent as an Estate Officer conducted the proceedings under the Act without the notification of the Central Government in terms of Section 3 of the Act. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Sri.A.S.Somannvar, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the orders under challenge and submits that the Central Government has issued the notification under Section 3 of the Act on 21.07.1978 which was published on 05.08.1978. Hence, the Estate Officer has the jurisdiction and has an authority to initiate proceedings under Section 5 of the Act. It is submitted that the petitioner’s term of lease for a period of 5 years came to an end and thereafter he became an unauthorized occupant of the public premises which has been rightly considered by the Authority as well as the Court and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within 15 days which does not call for any interference.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent, meticulously perused the material available on record and I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced.

5. The petitioner has been inducted in Octroi Naka Building at railway bus stand Shop No.H-19. The lease of the premises had expired on 31.07.2014, but he continued to occupy the said premises. On 19.01.2019, the petitioner made a request to the Cantonment Board seeking to renew his lease from 01.08.2014 till date and further extension of