D S SACHDEV Vs. B V CHITTIBABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition discloses the defiant attitude of the landlord with respect to an allotment of a residential building by the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore. As per proceedings of the house Rent and Accommodation Controller, the residential premises in question was allotted to the petitioner. This allotment was obviously disliked by the landlord the respondent herein. He challenged the same before the Appellate Authority namely the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Krishi Bhavan, Bangalore unsuccessfully. That appeal was rejected which resulted in his filing W. P. No. 15311 of 1995 before this Court that writ petition was also dismissed on 19-9-1995. A writ appeal was filed by the landlord as W. A. No. 3662 of 1995; the appeal was also dismissed on 16-10-1995. Subsequent thereto, steps were taken by the tenant to secure possession of the premises. The key of the premises was handed over to the tenant on 25-10-1995 but at the time of delivery it was discovered that the building was completely damaged. Thereupon, the tenant made a complaint to the House Rent and Accommodation Controller to take appropriate action and restore the premises in a habitable stage. Apparently on this complaint the competent authority passed an order on 29-11-1995; therein the authority had stated as under:<IMG>hd4.jpg</IMG>

(2.) FINDING that nothing transpired, on 25-12-1995 the petitioner submitted a complaint stating as under: "2. All the doors of the house removed window 5 Nos. , removed by breaking the walls of the house, water and electricity cut and damaged, lavatory English Type damaged and now finally removed by damaging the floor water tap removed and water pipe cut, light holder, bulbs removed and switches damaged very badly electric fittings all removed, cuboards, door 10 Nos. on the top of the bed room and 10 Nos. in the kitchen of about 2' x 2' removed and made it unfit and unsafe for a family to live.

(3.) I made a complaint to a goodself in writing and in turn on 2-11-1995 your goodself issued orders to the landlord directing him to restore everything within 15 days and handed over to Mr. Sachdev the allottee. On 18-11-1995 at about 19. 40 hrs, landlord's son Mr. B. C. Lokabiram comes and hands over two keys to me of the above said premises in the Police Station, Indiranagar, and I took the keys under protest in a damaged unfit and unsafe condition as it was on 26-10-1995, except 5 windows and 1 main door restored. Handingover/takingover notes were prepared and signed (copies attached)". It is seen from the above complaint of the tenant which is extracted, the order passed by the competent authority dated 29-11-1995 referred to above had not been complied with by the landlord. Apparently, as it was alleged that the landlord had completely damaged the building and on the ground that the premises did not tally with the premises allotted the tenant did not pay the rent. Thereupon, proceedings were initiated by the landlord as HRC No. 2526 of 1996 for eviction of the tenant under Section 21 (l) (a ). This application for eviction was filed on 26-3-1996 on the heels of the earlier proceedings. Later on, the application was amended as one under Section 21 (1) (h ). Pending the application I. A. I was made by the landlord for orders under Section 29 (1) and (4) of KRC Act seeking direction to the tenant to pay the arrears of rent from 18-11-1995 up-to-date of filing of the LA. and with a prayer for further direction to pay the future rent. Therein he also sought for an order to the effect that an order be made under Section 29 (4) of the Act. That application was contested by the tenant; the tenant admitted that he is in occupation of a premises owned by the landlord he having been allotted by the Accommodation Controller on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/ -. He alleged that building has been completely damaged and pulled down by the landlord after the disposal of the writ appeal referred to above; that there did not exist doors, windows etc. , for the house and that this ceased to be a premises to be described as a dwelling house. He alleged that since the dwelling house has been damaged and not repaired by the landlord and not in a fit position for use and occupation as such, the landlord cannot claim the rent.