The renewal of a lease constitutes a fresh lease, and if such renewal occurs after the commencement of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the provisions of the said Act apply to the premises, overriding claims of non-retrospectivity based on the original pre-Act lease date.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 31.01.2023 passed in M.A.No.5/2022 by the learned VI Additional District in Sessions Judge, Belagavi, vide Annexure-S, and the order of eviction dated 23.06.2021 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-M4.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioners’ society is a registered society and it was established for the encouragement of sports etc. The petitioners have taken the property in question on lease on 27.09.1937 for a period of 30 years with the effect from 01.01.1937 on a rent of Rs.110/- per annum. The second lease agreement was executed on 16.04.1975 for a period of 10 years with effect from 01.01.1967 on a rent of Rs.812/- per annum. The lease was further renewed for a period of 17 years from 01.01.1977 till 31.12.1993 on a rent of Rs.1,827/- per annum. The said lease was again renewed on 28.02.2002 for a period of 8 years 3 months from 01.01.1994 to 31.03.2002 on a rent of Rs.2,741/- per annum. The Defence Estate Officer (DEO) agreed to renew the lease for a period of 30 years and sought confirmation from the Union Gymkhana and the Army Troops and Cantonment Board employees should be allowed to use the facilities and one member from the station headquarters should be invited to the managing committee meeting. The petitioners agreed to the proposal and sent a copy of the resolution passed in the managing committee to DEO. The DEO agreed to renew the lease for a period of 30 years from 2002 to 2032 on a rent of Rs.2,740/- per year in 2002, and it is increased to laksh of Rupees with retrospective effect from 2002. However, the lease was not renewed. The respondents initiated proceedings under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (‘The Act of 1971’ for short) by issuing a notice. The petitioners did not reply to the said notice. The Estate Officer passed an order of eviction on 23.06.2021. The petitioners aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, preferred an appeal in M.A.No.5/2022 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. The appellate court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 31.01.2023. The petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned order, filed this writ petition.

3. The respondents filed a statement of objections contending that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts as the property is a public premise and the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the public premise. It is also contended that sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property was let out to the petitioners in 1937. The Act of 1971 came into force in 1971. Hence, the provisions of the Act of 1971 are not applicable to the case on hand. He submits that notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1971 was issued after the lapse of 19 years. He submits that the Estate Officer has not provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings, and the officials of the petitioners could not appear before the Estate Officer due to COVID-19 pandemic, a