ORDER : R. NATARAJ, J. 2. All the petitioners claim that they were allotted shops by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (henceforth referred to as 'Authority') and that they are conducting business in the shops so allotted. They claimed that the Commissioner had cancelled the lease of the shops, which was challenged by some of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.4952- 53/2001, W.P.No.7458/2001, W.P.No.5407/2001 and W.P.No.5422/2001 and this Court in terms of the orders dated 12.02.2001 and 30.03.2001 allowed the writ petitions and quashed the cancellation orders and directed the objections of the petitioners to be considered. Later, the Commissioner issued notices calling upon the petitioners to file their objections as to why they should not be evicted from the premises. The petitioners filed objections contending that the Commissioner has no authority to evict them without following due process of law. The petitioners filed their reply to the notices reiterating that the Commissioner has no authority to evict them without following due process of law. The Commissioner then passed the impugned orders cancelling the grant of lease of the shops in favour of the petitioners and directing the Special Tahsildar and the Assistant Executive Engineer to evict the petitioners and take physical possession. (ii) The petitioners being aggrieved by the same, are before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted in unison that petitioners were inducted lawfully by the Authority but later it attempted to cancel the allotment on the ground that the same was not in accordance with Section 38 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1987') as the permission of the State Government was not obtained before leasing the land beyond a period of five years. He contends that if the possession of the petitioners is unauthorized then the Commissioner is bound to take steps as provided under Section 74 of the Act, 1987. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.59187/2015. 4. The learned counsel for the Authority on the other hand contended that the petitioners had subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of the Authority, when some of the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.4952-53/2001, W.P.7458/2001, W.P.No.5407/2001 and W.P.No.5422/2001, referred supra, where this Court directed the Commissioner to consider the objections of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. 4. The learned counsel for the Authority on the other hand contended that the petitioners had subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of the Authority, when some of the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.4952-53/2001, W.P.7458/2001, W.P.No.5407/2001 and W.P.No.5422/2001, referred supra, where this Court directed the Commissioner to consider the objections of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. He contends that the Commissioner, therefore, issued fresh notices to the petitioners and thereafter, took steps in accordance with law by passing the impugned orders. He therefore, contends that the petitioners cannot now bank upon Section 74 of the Act, 1987 and claim that they have to be evicted in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1974'). 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the Authority. 6. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that all the petitioners were granted lease of the shops that belong to the Authority. It is not in dispute that the lease was granted by the Commissioner without following process provided under Section 38 of the Act, 1987. Therefore, Commissioner was authorized in law to put an end to the lease and call upon the petitioners to quit and deliver vacant possession. The procedure for recovering possession of the premises belonging to the Authority is as provided under Section 74 of the Act, 1987 which reads follows:- " 74. Prohibition of unauthorised occupation of land - (1) Any person who unauthorisedly enters upon and uses or occupies any land belonging to the authority to the use or occupation of which he is not entitled or has ceased to be entitled, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. (2) Any person who having unauthorisedly occupied whether before or after the commencement of this Act, any land belonging to the authority to the use or occupation of which he is not entitled, or has ceased to be entitled, fails to vacate such land in pursuance of an order under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (Karnataka Act 32 of 1974) shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees and with a further fine which may extend to fifty rupees per acre of land or part thereof for every day on which the occupation continues after the date of the first conviction for such offence. (3) Whoever intentionally aids or abets the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall, on conviction, be punished with the same punishment provided for such offence under the said sub-sections." 7. Therefore, the word "unauthorized occupant" includes not only a person, who had entered possession unauthorisedly but also a person, whose entitlement to continue in the premises had ceased and who fails to vacate the land pursuant to the notices issued under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, 1974. 8. The word "unauthorised occupation" under the Act, 1974 is defined as follows: "2(g) “unauthorised occupation”, in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises, without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever." 9. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the eviction of the petitioners should be in accordance with the Act, 1974 merits acceptance. 10. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) These petitions are allowed in part. The orders impugned in these petitions are all quashed. (ii) The Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority is directed to take out proceedings in accordance with the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 and Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. The orders impugned in these petitions are all quashed. (ii) The Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority is directed to take out proceedings in accordance with the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 and Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. (iii) The Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority shall endeavor to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.