(1.) EVEN though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with consent, it is taken up for final disposal.
(2.) THE petitioner is questioning the order passed by the Competent. Officer and as confirmed by the learned appellate Judge. The matter arises under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974.
(3.) MR . Kaleemullah Sheriff, learned Counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the notice at Ex.P1 is not issued by the first respondent but is issued by an individual who is a Secretary of the first, respondent. Hence, the notice is bad. He further submits that the petitioner was not permitted to cross -examine the respondent No. 1. Hence, in these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be interfered.