BOMBAY SWADESHI STORES Vs. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner M/s. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd., has presented this petition, praying for quashing the order of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 (hereinafter for short called the 'Act'), dismissing the respondent's appeal and confirming the order of the Competent Authority and the Estate Officer of the State Bank of Mysore, directing the eviction of the petitioner from the premises belonging to the first respondent-State Bank of Mysore.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follow: The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of a multi-storeyed building belonging to the first respondent State Bank of Mysore. The premises was given on lease to the petitioner for a period of 15 years with effect from 1-7-1970. The period of lease came to an end with effect from 1-7-1985. Thereafter a notice was issued by the Estate Officer of the State Bank of Mysore, appointed under Section 4 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be passed against it. The petitioner filed objections to the said notice. Thereafter the Estate Officer proceeded to pass an order of eviction against the petitioner rejecting the pleas raised by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner presented an appeal before the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, who is the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has presented this petition.

(3.) In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has urged the following grounds: (1) The premises is not a public premises within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Act; (2) The petitioner is not an unauthorised occupant of the premises; (3) The Bank being an Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot seek to evict the petitioner unreasonably or arbitrarily; (4) The action of the Bank in instituting proceedings against the petitioner is discriminatory as no action has been taken by the first respondent against several other tenants; (5) The Estate Officer, being an Officer of State Bank of Mysore, is a biased person and therefore could not function as an Enquiry Officer; (6) The petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India is violated by the impugned proceedings; and (7) The proceedings for eviction is violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. (8) The action for eviction was unreasonable.