CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitions are disposed of by this common order as they involve common questions of law and facts. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS in both the petitions are tenants of the respondent Town Municipal council Challakere. They became tenants by virtue of certain resolutions passed by the town Municipal Council. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the statement of objections filed by the respondent Town municipal Council and also as evidenced by annexure-B in writ petition No. 5200 of 1989, the period of lease appears to have come to an end on the expiry of 31st March 1989. Annexure-B is the notice issued under the provisions of the Karnataka public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) act, 1974. It calls upon the recipient of the notice to vacate the premises in his occupation and no more. Petitioners claim to have issued suitable reply to such notices. It is thereafter that the impugned notice as at Annexure-C dated 18-8-1989 is published announcing that the specified leasehold rights in the shops and other premises at six,different places belonging to the Municipal Council within its jurisdiction shall be disposed of by public auction subject to the conditions enumerated in the notice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court inter alia contending that the auction notice is contrary to law; that the required procedure has not been followed and further that the lease itself has not come to an end. ( 4 ) IN the statement of objections it has been asserted by the Chief Officer in both the petitions that the procedure prescribed under Rule 39 of the Karnataka municipalities (Guidance of officers, Grant of copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) rules, 1966 framed under the Karnataka municipalities Act has been complied with and therefore there is no procedural violation in publishing the auction notice. It is asserted, when the lease period had come to an end and notices have been issued and there- afterwards the petitioners had become unauthorised occupants at the end of the lease and therefore notices as at Annexure-B was issued. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to these assertions this court cannot find fault with the Muncipality for publishing the auction notice. They are bound in terms of Rule 39 of the aforementioned rules, which is held to be mandatory by this Court in more than one decision. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, Mr. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to these assertions this court cannot find fault with the Muncipality for publishing the auction notice. They are bound in terms of Rule 39 of the aforementioned rules, which is held to be mandatory by this Court in more than one decision. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Madhusudan Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that if the lease period had come to an end as claimed in Annexure-B petitioners cannot be thrown out without due process of law. As the Court understands, annexure-B is a notice for handling over possession. Annexure-C is no more than a proclamation of the Muncipality to dispose of the lease- hold rights of its properties in con fir mi ty with the prescribed procedure under the relevant Rules. The accusation by the petitioners is that it is only to demand higher rent and public authorities must also treat their tenants reasonably and therefore it is open to negotiation for higher rent. If that is the object of the public auction, nobody may have any quarrel with the landlords. But if the law requires that the leasehold rights or alienation of property by the Municipality are required to be done in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, then that alone shall be done and what is prescribed by law shall be presumed to be a fair procedure till the law itself is challenged as unfair and therefore unconstitutional. On that ground the petitioners cannot make a grievance. Public auction is open to all including the petitioners. If they want to continue in possession of the premises they may offer their bid in the auction and continue to occupy the same on the terms and conditions imposed. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, there is no merit in these writ petitions and they are dismissed. This is subject however that their eviction shall be in accordance with law and not by use of physical force by any officer of the Municipality taking the law into his or their own hands. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .