- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11381 WP No. 101945 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 101945 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN SHRI RAMESH C. OZA, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, ADDRESS AT PRASAD SWEET MART, SHOP NO.H-19, OCTROI NAKA BUILDING, CONTONMENT BOARD, BELAGAVI. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND THE ESTATE OFFICER, C/O. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CONTONMENT BOARD, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. S. SOMANNAVAR AND SRI. K. S. PATIL, ADVOCATES) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 29.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11381 WP No. 101945 of 2021 CAV ORDER (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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11381 WP No. 101945 of 2021 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11381 WP No. 101945 of 2021 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 5 years. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11381 WP No. 101945 of 2021 Cantonment Board considered the appellant’s request along with others and rejected the same in the Board meeting held on 27.09.2019. It was further decided to evict the petitioner from the public premises and decided to conduct public auction as contemplated under Section 267(1) of the Cantonment Act, 2006. The records further indicate that the authority under the provisions of the Act passed an order under Section 5(1) of the Act ordering the eviction of the petitioner vide order dated 16.10.2019. The petitioner assailed the said order in Misc. Appeal No.35/2019. The District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi vide order dated 03.01.2020 allowed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioner and the matter was remitted back with a direction to the respondent to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent witnesses and to place documentary evidence. After remand, the Authority under the act passed the order of eviction dated 28.02.2020 by recording the finding that the request of the petitioner for renewal of the lease is rejected and his continuation is amounting to unauthorized occupancy of the public premises. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11381 WP No. 101945 of 2021 6. The order of the authority was assailed in Misc.Appeal No.7/2020. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.04.2021 dismissed the appeal directing the petitioner to vacate the schedule shop and hand over the possession of the premises within two months. The finding recorded by the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are strictly in consonance of the material available on record. Admittedly, the lease in question had expired long back i.e. on 31.07.2014 and thereafter, the petitioner occupied the public premises without any authority of law. The contention of the petitioner that after the expiry of lease period the respondents have continued to receive the rent cannot be a ground to continue the petitioner indefinitely. The learned counsel for the respondent has categorically stated that the receipts issued to the petitioner clearly indicate that the amount issued is towards the damages and not towards the rent. 7. The further contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 28.02.2020 is passed by an Authority without jurisdiction. The said contention is rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondent contending that the Central - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11381 WP No. 101945 of 2021 Government has issued notification under Section 3 of the Act notifying the Estate Officer vide notification dated 21.07.1978 which was published in the official gazette on 05.08.1978. 8. The other contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the continuation of the petitioner in the premises is nothing but holding over the tenancy and is required to be evicted from the premises as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the respondent-Authority has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Act. The said contention has no merit. The petitioner has not raised this contention either before the Original Authority or before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner knowing fully well that he is an unauthorized occupant, has participated in the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act, therefore, now he cannot be turn around and contend that the Authority has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Act. Section 2(g) of the Act defines ‘unauthorized occupant’. The unauthorized occupant of public premise means any person without any authority of such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11381 WP No. 101945 of 2021 after the authority under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. In the case on hand, the term of lease expired on 31.07.2014 and continuance of the petitioner in the public premises is amounting to unauthorized occupation of the public premises and the Authority by following due process of law ordered for eviction from the premises. On careful perusal of the impugned orders including the evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Court have considered the pleading and evidence on record and rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has no right to continue in the public premises and ordered for delivery of vacant possession. I do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Court calling for interference in this writ petition by exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11381 WP No. 101945 of 2021 ORDER (i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, is dismissed. (ii) In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner shall vacate and handover the possession of the premises to the respondent within a period of two (2) months from today. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1