RATILAL BROS Vs. GOVTOF MYSORE AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petn. is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writs of certiorari & prohibition to quash the order passed by reap. 1 & for a direction that the said order should not be executed. The ground on which the writs are sought is that the order passed by resp. 1 for eviction of the petnrs. from the premises of which resp. 2 is the owner is without jurisdiction under the provisions of the Mysore House Rent & Accommodation Control Order. Respondent 3 is said to be an unregistered association of Jains of the Swatambar cult & purchased the building in about the year 1947 for the purpose of running a residential Hindi school. The petnrs. have been the tenants of the premises from a time long prior to the date of the purchase by resp. 2. An appln. made by resp, 2 to the House Rent Controller for eviction of the petnrs. on the ground that it was needed for opening the school was unsuccessful. A similar appln. 61ed in the following year was allowed by the House Rent Controller dismissed by the Labour Comr. on appeal but eventually granted by the Govt. It is this order of Govt. which is attacked by the petnrs. & with respect to which the writs are prayed for.

(2.) It is beyond dispute, this Ct. has jurisdiction to issue the writs as this is clearly provided for in Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the conditions for the exercise of the power are not mentioned therein. The nature of these writs is explained by Atkin L. J. in The King v. Electricity Commrs., (1924) 1 K. B. 171 at p. 204 : (93 L. J. K. B. 390) thus :

(3.) Sri B. Shankar Rao, the learned counsel on behalf of the petnrs has advanced three contentions to show that the order is one passed in excess of the powers conferred by the House Rent & Accommodation Control Order & these are: (i) when once an appln for eviction based on the allegation that the premises were required for running a school was dismissed, a second appln. setting forth the same reason does not lie; (2) Clause 12, House Rent Control Order, requires permission to be obtained for converting a residential building into a non-residential one & since no such permission has been obtained by resp 2, to make use of the building for running the school, the appln. for eviction was not maintainable & (3) running a school in the building cannot be regarded as occupation under Clause 9 (3) (i), House Rent Control Order & it is necessary that resp. 2 should himself live there for the application of that provision.