- (1.) The petitioners claim to be the lessees of certain premises belonging to third respondent temple. There is no dispute that earlier they were in the occupation and subsequently when the premises were altered they were given certain shops under the lease. After the lease period was over they were asked to vacate the premises. Subsequently eviction proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1984, ('the P. P. Act' for short). The order of the Estate Officer was affirmed by the District Judge, Mysore. Hence these writ petitions.
(2.) Mr. Parthasarathy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the P. P. Act is inapplicable because this is an institution not under the management of the Government and only the premises belonging to a Mujrai institution under the management of the Government could be governed by the provisions of the Act, if not the tenants could be evicted only by recourse to the provisions of either Rent Control Act or the general law governing the landlord and the tenant.
(3.) The premises are in Nanjangud, the area of which is governed by the Karnataka Rent Control Act.;