Sri Mushtaq Ahmed vs The Anjuman-E-Farooquia and The Karnataka State Board of Wakfs

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Competent Officer (Annexure-G) and the order dated 25.02.2012 passed by the Appellate Court in MA No. 69/2011 (Annexure-M). The first respondent-Wakf is the owner of the property in question. The petitioner herein had initially occupied the suit premises. Apart from the fact that at an earlier point, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for recovering the arrears of licence fee, the first respondent subsequently initiated action for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question by invoking the provisions under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (''the Act'' for short). In that regard, a notice dated 29.11.2010 was issued by the Competent Officer. Pursuant thereto, the proceedings were held and the Competent Officer by the order dated 29.11.2011 had directed eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same had preferred a statutory appeal in MA No. 69/2011. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the said orders.

The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order passed by the Competent Officer as also the Appellate Court would contend that the authorities below have not considered the matter in its correct perspective. It is contended that the petitioner was-a tenant in respect of the said premises and therefore the eviction made under the said Act is not sustainable. It is also contended that the nature of the claim made with regard to rents/licence fee is not justified and as such the orders are liable to be set aside.

The learned counsel for the first respondent would however to seek to sustain the order passed by the authorities below. It is pointed out that in the present proceedings, the arrears of rent was not an issue. It is also contended that the premises in question admittedly is a public premises and the very manner of right which had been granted to the petitioner to occupy the premises would indicate that that he was a licencee, and after the initial period has lapsed, there was no continuation of the licence and as such he had become an unauthorised occupant in respect of the public premises and as such action has been initiated in accordance with law.

In the light of the above contention, the perusal of the papers would indicate that the competent authority while considering the rival contentions has answered the issue relating to the fact as to whether the petitioner could be considered as an unauthorized occupant and as to whether he should be directed to vacate the premises?

In that regard, the authority has taken into consideration the definition as provided u/s 2(g) of the Act and in that circumstance, the petitioner had failed to produce any material to indicate that he was continuing in possession of the premises either as a lessee or licencee under any authority. The Competent Officer was of the view that he is an unauthorized occupant and the order has been passed. Against the said order when the petitioner was before the Appellate Authority the Appellate Court on taking note of the rival contentions has made detailed examination of the order passed by the Competent Authority and the proceedings conducted therein. In that regard, the Appellate Court apart from considering the fact that the premises in question is a public premises and in that view whether the petitioner could be considered as a person in occupation with due authorization, has referred to the proceedings to take note of the fact that the petitioner was assisted by an advocate in the said proceeding and despite sufficient opportunity no documents whatsoever was produced by the petitioner to indicate that he had been an authorized occupant of the premises as per law.

In that view, when the petitioner has failed to establish that he was in occupation of the premises with due authorization from the landlord, certainly the Competent Authority as well as the Appellate Court were justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant and passing the eviction order. Hence, the said orders impugned do not call for interference. Though in a normal circumstance, this Court would have granted some time to vacate, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the order has already been executed and the possession has been taken by the first respondent, no such order is necessary herein.

In terms of the above, petition stands disposed of.