ORDER
Rama Jois, J.
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.
4. In support of the first contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that State Bank of Mysore was an Independent Corporate body constituted under the provisions of State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959 and therefore the premises cannot be regarded as a public premises as defined under the Act.
5. In fact, as pointed out by the Appellate Authority, in Its order this objection was not at all raised before the original Authority. Even so the Appellate Authority has considered it in great detail and has rejected it. The expression Public Premises is defined by Section 2(e) of the Act which reads:
“Public Premises” means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes –
(1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of –
(i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than fiftyone per cent, of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government; and
(ii) any Corporation not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 or a local Authority established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government; and
(2) in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi-
(i) any premises belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or any Municipal Committee or notified area. Committee, and
(ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi Development Authority whether such premises are in the possession of, or leased out by, the said Authority.”
As can be seen from the above definition, the premises belonging to any Corporation established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government would be a public premises within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Act. The State Bank of Mysore is established under the provisions of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959. The preamble to the Act reads:
“An Act to provide for the formation of certain Government or Government associated Banks as subsidiaries of the State Bank of India and for the Constitution, management and control of the subsidiary Banks so formed, and for matters connected therewith, or incidental thereto.”
Section 3 empowers the Central Government to Establish the State Bank of Mysore and a few other State Banks. That Section reads:
Establishment of new Banks – With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, there shall be constituted the following new Banks, namely –
(a) State Bank of Bikaner;
(b) the State Bank of Indore;
(c) Omitted;
(d) the State Bank of Mysore;
(e) the State Bank of Patiala;
(f) the State Bank of Travancore
and different dates may be specified for different new Banks.
6. As can be seen from the preamble, the Act was enacted for establishment of Government/Government Associated Banks as subsidiaries of the State Bank of India and inter alia for their management and control. It is by virtue of the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act, the Bank was established. A brief survey of the provisions of the Act would show that the entire management of the subsidiary Bank is regulated by Union Legislation and that both direct control over the subsidiary Banks by Government of India as also indirect control of Government of India on them through the State Bank of India and Reserve Bank of India is provided for. Some of them are: The Central Government has the power to change the name of a subsidiary Bank (Section 3A). The Central Government has the power to decide the place where the Head Office has to situate (Section 5). The Central Government has the power to constitute a Tribunal for the purpose of the Act (Section 15). The State Bank has the power to give directions and instructions to a subsidiary Bank which are binding on them (Section 24). The composition of the Board of Directors is specified in Section 25 itself, among whom one is to be nominated by the Reserve Bank, not more than five by the State Bank of India and one by the Central Government (Section 25). The Central Government has the power to f ix the term of office of Directors appointed under Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 25 (Section 26). The State Bank has the power to appoint Managing Director of a Subsidiary Bank (Section 29). A subsidiary Bank is required to furnish annual returns to the Central Government (Section 43). The Central Government has the power regarding Liquidation (Section 57). The Central Government has the power to make Rules for purposes of the Act and the State Bank has the power to make regulations (Sections 62 and 63), which are binding on a subsidiary Bank. Therefore, beyond doubt, the State Bank of Mysore is a Corporation established under a Central Act and controlled by the Central Government, and the premises belonging to it is a Public Premises as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act, and the contention of the petitioner to the contrary is untenable.
7. Regarding the second question, the contention raised is that a notice of termination had been issued in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy of the petitioner with effect from 30-6-1985 and not with the end of 1-7-1985 and therefore the notice of termination is Invalid and consequently the petitioner could not be regarded as unauthorised occupant.
8. There is no dispute that the lease was for the period of 15 years commencing from 1-7-1970. Therefore, in accordance with the lease deed, the tenancy of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from 1-7-1985. If only the termination of the tenancy of the petitioner was sought to be brought about some time in between 1-7-1970 and 1-7-1985, the requirement of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had to be compiled with. Even without issue of any notice the lease in favour of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from 1-7-1985. Further, it is clear from the notice Issued by the State Bank of Mysore, it had decided against the continuing of the tenancy of the petitioner. In respect of a premises belonging to a Corporation, the tenancy could be continued only by an express decision of the Corporation to continue the tenancy. In this case the Bank had decided against continuing the tenancy. Therefore the petitioner became an unauthorised occupant Immediately after the expiry of the lease period. The question as to whether a person can be treated as a tenant holding over, even if the rent has been received only, was the subject matter for decision in SHAMAIAH GOWDA v. SHIMOGA CITY MUNICIPA-LITY . In that case, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that once a period of lease came to an end, even the payment of rent and its receipt by some Officer of the Corporation would not make a person tenant holding over, in the absence of any express decision of the Corporate body to continue the tenancy and receive the rent. In the present case, since the Bank had decided not to continue the tenancy, the petitioner became an unauthorised occupant on the termination of the lease and therefore the contention that the petitioner did not become an unauthorised occupant is not tenable.
9. Next contention of the petitioner is that the Bank is an Authority under Article 12 and hence it cannot evict the petitioner unreasonably or arbitrarily.
The State Bank of Mysore is a State as defined under Article 12 is not at all in dispute. The question is whether the action of State Bank of Mysore in taking eviction proceedings against the petitioner is violative of any of the fundamental right of the petitioner. I fail to see as to how the action can be treated as unreasonable or arbitrary. The lease was given for a period of fifteen years. It is only after the termination of the lease, in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner becoming an unauthorised occupant, action for his eviction has been taken under the provisions of the Act. In fact the provisions of the Act are meant for taking action against a person in unauthorised occupation of a public premises after the expiry of the lease period. Taking action against unauthorised occupant cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary.
10. The fourth contention of the petitioner is that action for eviction taken by the Bank is discriminatory for the reason that there are some other tenants whose period of tenancy had expired and against whom no action had been taken. The question whether a tenancy should be continued or not is a matter for the Bank to decide. It depends upon the requirement of the Bank and other relevant consideration. This is, therefore, a matter for consideration by the State Bank of Mysore and does not constitute a ground for interfering with the order made by the original and Appellate Authorities.
11. The fifth ground is that the Estate Officer being an Officer of the State Bank of Mysore, couId not have been appointed as an Enquiry Officer as he suffers from bias. This very question has been the subject matter for consideration in INDIAN BANK v. BLAZE & CENTRAL (P) LTD . It is pointed out in the said decision that when by or under an Act of Legislature, the power to take action is conferred on a particular Officer, there is no scope for Invoking the principles of Natural Justice, for, it is settled position in law that the principles of natural justice only supplement the law but do not supplant it.
12. The sixth ground is that the petitioner is deprived of his right to carry on business and therefore the eviction is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. There is no substance in this contention. The State Bank of Mysore, by asking the petitioner to vacate the premises has not prevented the petitioner from carrying on its business. It has asked the petitioner to vacate the premises as the petitioner had become an unauthorised occupant. The petitioner is at liberty to do business in any other premises.
13. The seventh ground is that the eviction amounts to violation of Article 300-A. Right to property by way of lease which the petitioner had secured was only for a period of 15 years and that right had come to an end by efflux of time and he is being evicted only in accordance with law and not otherwise than in accordance with law. Therefore there is no violation of Article 300-A.
14. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the Bank was unreasonable. In support of this, he invited my attention to para-3 of the objections of the petitioner filed before the Estate Officer. It reads:
“The petitioner is seeking eviction of the Respondent on the ground that the premisesin question is required for expansion of its business. It is submitted that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation for its business. It has recently put up three storeyed building within the compound of its Head Office where the premises in question is situated, facing Hospital Road, Bangalore. The newly built accommodation is more than sufficient for the petitioner’s expansion of its business. The said newly built premises has in fact not been occupied in full. Apart from that, the entire5th and 6th floor of the premises in question is also completely vacant which is also suitable for the expansion of the business of petitioner.
The petitioner also owns two more buildings in the same compound; one is Garudachar Building facing the Avenue Road and another stone structure building facing the Avenue Road, wherein the petitioner is running its business. The petitioner is, therefore, not making use of even the available accommodation and therefore, no purpose would be served by evicting the respondent from the premises. The petitioner’s demand is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and not bona fide.”
Similar question has been considered by the Division Bench in the Indian Bank case? The question of bona fide use of the owner of the public premises or hardship that is likely to be caused to the tenant by eviction are matters which are not relevant to the proceedings under the Act. As pointed out in the Indian Bank case, the only two grounds which are required to be considered by the original Authority as well as Appellate Authority are (i) whether the premises in question is a public premises and (ii) the person in occupation had become an unauthorised occupant. If these two questions are answered in the affirmative no further question arises for consideration by those authorities. Thus the last contention is also devoid of any merit.
15. In the result, I make the following: