IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 19889 OF 2025 (GM-PP)

BETWEEN:

SRI ASHOK CHAND S/O SANTOKCHAND, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.69-72, 73/1, 73/2, 74-76 AND 139-141, SRI. SRINIVASAMANDIRA CHARITIES PROPERTY BALEPETE MAIN ROAD, BALEPETE, BENGALURU …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MOHANA KUMARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH 1. SRI SRINIVASAMANDIRA CHARITIES COURT OF KARNATAKA BALEPET, BENGALURU 560053.

REP. BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MUZARAI WORKS, CITY RANGE, 3^RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, V.V.TOWER, BENGALURU 560 001

2. HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER KPPA ACT.

MAHADESWARA VARTHA BHAVAN, VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET-560 018. REP. BY COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI FURTHER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE XLIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEALNO.69/2022. B) TO AWARD COST OF THIS PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The material on record discloses that respondent No.1, being the competent authority in respect of a “public premises” within the meaning of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the Act’), had initially issued a notice dated 09.10.2014 calling upon him to hand over vacant possession. In spite of such termination, the petitioner continued in occupation. Consequently, proceedings were initiated before respondent No.2 – the Estate Officer under the provisions of the Act. The records further reveal that sufficient and reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to contest the proceedings. However, the petitioner failed to place any cogent or documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of lawful occupation or subsisting tenancy, thereby rendering his defence wholly untenable in the eye of law.

2. A close scrutiny of the order passed by the Estate Officer as well as the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court in M.A.No.69/2022 would indicate that the foundational facts are not in serious dispute. It is not disputed that the subject property answers the description of “public premises” under the Act. Once the character of the property as public premises is established, the statutory scheme of the Act, which is a special enactment intended to provide a speedy and summary mechanism for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public property, comes into operation. The Act significantly curtails the scope of defence available to an occupant and casts a burden on such occupant to demonstrate a valid and subsisting authority to remain in possession.

3. In the present case, though the petitioner has sought to assert that he was inducted into possession under a lease, he has conspicuously failed to produce either the original lease deed or any material evidencing renewal or continuation of such lease. On the contrary, the records disclose that the Estate Officer had issued notice in Form ‘A’ on 04.09.2020, as contemplated under the Act, and the petitioner, despite entering appearance, did not choose to adduce any evidence. In proceedings under the Act, once the authority establishes that the premises is a public premises and that the occupation is without authority, the onus shifts heavily on the occupant to justify his possession. The petitioner having failed to discharge this statutory burden, the Estate Officer, upon appreciation of the available material, has rightly recorded a finding that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation and consequently ordered eviction by ord