RADHAKUMARIAMMA D Vs. RENT AND ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-9-80 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the D. C.) in Appeal No. H.R.C. (Civil) appeal No. 61 of 1980-81 (Annexure-E) affirming - the order dated 30-6-80 of the Rent land Accommodation Controller, Civil Area, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Controller) in Case No. H.R.C. 268|ACC|80 (Annexure-D).

(2.) As owner of a residential building bearing No. 25, Annaiah Reddy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore-8, consisting of a ground floor and a first floor, the petitioner, occupying the first floor, had leased the ground floor of the same to one Sri George Philip, who is stated to have voluntarily vacated it on 2-6-80. On 5-6-80 the petitioner reported the vacancy of the ground floor of the building to the controller as required by S. 4(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act of 1961, (Kar. Act No. 22(1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) in the prescribed form and sought his permission to occupy the same without letting it out to others, for the detailed reasons explained in her affidavit.

(3.) On receipt of the aforesaid intimation of vacancy, the Controller on 6-6-80 notified the vacancy as required by the Act and the rule's framed thereunder, in response to which, respondent No. 3 and four others applied for allotment of the building. Before the Controller, the petitioner reiterated her case and urged for releasing the building for her own use and occupation. On the other hand, respondent No.3 and other applicants urged for allotment of the building on various grounds. After hearing the parties, the Controller inspected the building on 27-6-80 and by his order dated 30-6-80 (Annexure-D) rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the building and allotted the same to respondent No. 3 accepting his case for allotment over the other applicants. Against the said order of the controller, the petitioner filed an appeal before the D.C. who by his order dated 8-9-80 (Annexure-E) has dismissed the same.