Proceedings under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 are summary in nature; therefore, elaborate discovery and interrogatory mechanisms under Order XI of the CPC are inapplicable, especially at the appellate stage, to prevent the conversion of summary evictions into protracted civil trials.

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, an alleged unauthorized occupant, calling in question the order passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby an application filed under Order XI Rules 1, 2 and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been rejected. The Appellate Authority has declined to entertain the said application on the ground that such recourse is not permissible in an appeal preferred under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the 1974 Act’).

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.1 as the Estate Officer for initiating proceedings to evict the petitioner on the premise that he is an unauthorized occupant of the subject premises. Pursuant to such appointment, respondent No.1/Estate Officer issued notice to the petitioner, conducted an enquiry in accordance with law, and ultimately passed an order of eviction under Section 4 of the 1974 Act.

3. Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 10 of the 1974 Act. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order XI Rules 1, 2 and 14 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to produce certain documents, which according to the petitioner are necessary for effective adjudication of the appeal. The said application, however, came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and has bestowed its anxious consideration to the prayer sought in the application filed under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. This Court deems it appropriate to extract the interrogatories sought to be administered to the respondents, which read as follows:

"1. The Respondents to produce the Video recorded during the Auction proceedings.

2. The Respondents to produce the Original lease agreement executed by the appellant from time to time as directed by the TMC Pavagada with the deposit made by the appellant.

3. The Respondents to produce the documents showing when the appellant has occupied the premises and on what basis/order he has occupied the premises. Further, the relevant dates with documents when the occupation of the premises by the appellant was allowed to continue to be produced.

4. The Respondents to produce documents showing the rents paid by the appellant from the date when the appellant occupied the premises/or give such other particulars showing the rents as well as deposits made by the appellant.

5. A reference is made in the objections regarding the Govt. of Karnataka Notification dated 20-06-2000 appointing the Respondent as Estate Officer, but the Respondent has not produced any document as to whether the Chief Officer of the TMC Pavagada is a Class-I Officer or otherwise. The rank/designation of the

6. Documents showing on what basis the Reservation of shops has been done relating to SC/ST to be produced.

7. The Respondents to produce the relevant documents such as resolutions/Govt. Orders/Notifications to show as to why the auction of the schedule premises was proposed, the intention behind the auction.

8. The respondents to produce the representation made by the persons who are said to be successful bidders i