been rejected. The Appellate Authority has declined to
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the
he is an unauthorized occupant of the subject premises.
order of eviction under Section 4 of the 1974 Act.
3. Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by
1974 Act. During the pendency of the said appeal, the
adjudication of the appeal. The said application, however,
came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties. This Court has carefully considered the rival
XI Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. This Court deems it appropriate
3.The Respondents to produce the documents
showing when the appellant has occupied the
premises and on what basis/order he has occupied
the premises. Further, the relevant dates with
documents when the occupation of the premises by
the appellant was allowed to continue to be
produced.
NC: 2026:KHC:18713
HC-KAR
4. The Respondents to produce documents
showing the rents paid by the appellant from the
date when the appellant occupied the premises/or
give such other particulars showing the rents as well
as deposits made by the appellant.
5.A reference is made in the objections
regarding the Govt. of Karnataka Notification dated
20-06-2000 appointing the Respondent as Estate
Officer, but the Respondent has not produced any
document as to whether the Chief Officer of the TMC
Pavagada is a Class-I Officer or otherwise. The
rank/designation of the
6. Documents showing on what basis the
Reservation of shops has been done relating to
SC/ST to be produced.
7. The Respondents to produce the relevant
documents such as resolutions/Govt. Orders/
Notifications to show as to why the auction of the
schedule premises was proposed, the intention
behind the auction.
8. The respondents to produce the
representation made by the persons who are said to
be successful bidders in the auction to reduce the
rent as the rent is too high and are unable to pay the
same. Viz., the Bidders of Shop premises Nos.28, 7,
29, 10, 19, 1, 16, 31, 4, 25, 26, 6, 21 & 15.
9. The Notice issued to the appellant u/Sec.4 of
the Act giving reasons for eviction to be produced.
10. All the relevant records prior to initiation of
the proceedings for eviction maintained by the
respondents to be produced."
NC: 2026:KHC:18713
HC-KAR
5. This Court, upon careful examination of the
interrogatories extracted supra, is of the considered view
that the very nature and tenor of the questions sought to
be administered by the petitioner travel far beyond the
permissible scope of enquiry contemplated under Section
4 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short, 'the 1974
Act'). Proceedings initiated under Section 4 of the 1974
Act are essentially summary in nature, intended to
provide a swift and efficacious mechanism for eviction of
unauthorized occupants from public premises. The
legislative intent underlying the enactment is to avoid
protracted civil trials and ensure expeditious recovery of
possession by public authorities.
6. Though it is trite that the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are made applicable to a
limited extent, such applicability is procedural and not
plenary. The Estate Officer is not expected to conduct a
roving or fishing enquiry akin to a regular civil suit. The
NC: 2026:KHC:18713
HC-KAR
scope of adjudication is confined to examining (i) whether
the occupant is unauthorized, and (ii) whether an order of
eviction is warranted on the basis of material placed
before the authority. The elaborate interrogatories now
sought ranging from production of auction videos,
historical lease agreements, reservation policies, internal
resolutions, and representations of third parties are
wholly extraneous to the limited enquiry envisaged under
Section 4.
7. This Court is of the considered view that the
scheme of Section 4 of the Karnataka Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974,
manifests that the proceedings contemplated thereunder
are summary in nature, structured, and purpose-oriented,
intended to secure expeditious eviction of unauthorized
occupants from public premises. The jurisdiction of the
Estate Officer is triggered upon formation of an opinion
that the occupant is in unauthorized possession, either ab
initio or by reason of expiry, termination, or breach of the
NC: 2026:KHC:18713
HC-KAR
authority under which possession was initially granted.
The enquiry is thus confined to a limited adjudicatory
spectrum, namely, whether the premises fall within the
definition of public premises, whether the occupant is
unauthorized, and whether the authorization, if any, has
ceased to exist in the eye of law. The Estate Officer is not
vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate complicated
questions relating to title, ownership, or inter se disputes
between private parties, nor is the authority required to
examine policy decisions or administrative justifications
underlying actions of the public authority. The
proceedings are guided by principles of natural justice,
requiring issuance of notice and affording reasonable
opportunity to show cause; however, the standard of
satisfaction is one of reasonable and prima facie
satisfaction, and not that of a full-fledged civil trial.
8. Though certain provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, are made applicable, such applicability
is limited, facilitative, and not plenary, and cannot be
NC: 2026:KHC:18713
HC-KAR
invoked to convert summary proceedings into a detailed
civil adjudication. The Estate Officer is not expected to
permit roving or fishing enquiries, nor can the occupant
compel production of voluminous or collateral records
unrelated to the core issue of unauthorized occupation.
Mechanisms such as interrogatories and discovery under
Order XI CPC, particularly in their expanded form post-
amendment relating to commercial disputes, have no
application in proceedings of this nature. The burden
initially lies on the authority to establish unauthorized
occupation, upon which the onus shifts to the occupant
to justify lawful possession. The statutory framework,
read in conjunction with the limited appellate jurisdiction
under Section 10, clearly demonstrates that the enquiry
must remain focused, time-bound, and confined to the
question of unauthorized occupation, and any attempt to
enlarge its scope would defeat the very object of the
enactment.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18713
HC-KAR
9. Significantly, the records indicate that the
petitioner, during the pendency of proceedings before
respondent No.1/Estate Officer, has not diligently availed
the opportunity to place his objections or produce
material in support of his case. Having failed to do so at
the appropriate stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted
to reopen the entire enquiry indirectly by invoking the
provisions of Order XI of CPC.
10. The next and more crucial aspect that arises
for consideration is as to whether such recourse could at
all be resorted to in an appeal preferred under Section 10
of the 1974 Act. This Court answers the said question in
the negative. An appeal under Section 10 is in the nature
of a statutory appellate remedy against the order of
eviction and is confined to examining the legality,
correctness, and propriety of the order passed by the
Estate Officer on the basis of the material already on
record. It is not a stage for initiating a de novo enquiry
or for invoking elaborate discovery mechanisms.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18713
HC-KAR
11. The provisions of Order XI Rules 1 and 2
(interrogatories) and Rule 14 (production of documents)
of CPC are designed primarily for civil trials, where
parties are at liberty to establish their respective claims
through detailed pleadings and evidence. More
importantly, Rule 14, in its present form post-
amendment, has a specific and enhanced application in
commercial disputes, where structured discovery and
disclosure are integral to adjudication. The said
framework cannot be bodily imported into summary
proceedings under the 1974 Act, much less in an
appellate proceeding arising therefrom.
12. Permitting such applications would defeat
the very object of the statute by converting summary
eviction proceedings into full-fledged civil trials, thereby
enabling unauthorized occupants to indefinitely prolong
their possession of public premises. The doctrine
governing proceedings under the Public Premises Act
consistently emphasizes speed, efficiency, and limited
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18713
HC-KAR
adjudicatory scope, as opposed to exhaustive fact-
finding exercises.
13. In the present case, the petitioner, having
suffered an order of eviction, has sought to invoke the
machinery of interrogatories at the appellate stage. The
nature of the queries extracted supra clearly
demonstrates that the attempt is not to clarify any
ambiguity germane to the issue of unauthorized
occupation, but to protract the proceedings. This Court
cannot countenance such an approach.
14. It is a matter of common judicial
experience that unauthorized occupants often resort to
dilatory tactics to stall eviction proceedings. The
present application is one such attempt to protract the
proceedings under the guise of seeking discovery. The
Appellate Authority, having examined the scheme of
the Act and the nature of the application, has rightly
recorded a categorical finding that the provisions of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18713
HC-KAR
Order XI of CPC are inapplicable in an appeal under
Section 10 of the 1974 Act.
15. This Court finds no infirmity, perversity, or
jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Appellate
Authority. On the contrary, the reasoning assigned is
in consonance with the settled principles governing
summary eviction proceedings under the Public
Premises Act.
16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of
the firm opinion that no indulgence is warranted in the
present writ petition.
The petition is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1
