SHARANABASAVIAH CHANNABAVIAH Vs. SPL DY CMMR DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a person that files a voluntary declaration under S. 31-B of the Karnataka Rent Control Act of 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can withdraw the same or not and whether a person who makes such a declaration can be evicted without a notice and an order thereto under S. 10A of the Act, are the two questions that arise for determination in this case. In order to decide those questions and other incidental questions that disclose certain disturbing features, it it necessary to notice the facts that are not in dispute in the first instance.

(2.) On 28-12-78, the petitioner, a tax practitioner of Gadag city, claiming himself to be in occupation of two premises bearing C.T.S. Nos. 3999/12 and 3787/4 & 5 as tenant and as owner of two other premises bearing C.T.S. Nos. 6776 and 30611 and 666013/4 having let out the said two premises to others filed a voluntary declaration under S. 31-B of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner and the Rent Controller, Gadag Division Gadag (hereinafter referred to as the Controller) requesting that authority to regularise his unauthorised occupation or the unauthorised lease of the premises to others. We are principally concerned with the occupation of premises C.T.S. No. 3999/12, item No. ,1 of the declaration. The petitioner claims that he had taken the said premises on lease some time in 1955 from respondent No. 3 who was then its owner. On that declaration, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were notified fixing the date of hearing as 8-1-79, on 'which day the petitioner filed a statement inter alia stating that respondent No. 3 had agreed to sell the premises to him and that he had become its owner and the declaration in respect of the premises be, therefore, dropped. Respondent No. 3 who was not served by that date, did not appear on that day. He was later served and filed a statement on 5-5-80 stating that he had sold the said premises to respondent No. 4 for valuable consideration on 4-3-80 and, therefore, notice be issued to him. In that view, the Controller notified respondent No. 4, who filed a statement opposing the request of the petitioner for regularisation to the said premises on the ground that he owned houses in his own name and in the names of his wife and children.

(3.) On 17-5-80, the Controller virtually treating the declaration as seeking for regularisation in respect of the aforesaid premises only, upholding the objections of respondent No. 4 rejected the declaration made by the petitioner and directed him to vacate the said premises under intimation, to him (Annexure-E). Against the said order of the Controller the petitioner filed an appeal on 31-5-80 before the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar under S.12 of the Act with an application for stay of the operation of the order of the Controller. Respondent No. 4 suo motu entered appearance in that appeal and opposed the stay sought by the petitioner. On 9-6-80 the Special Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar (hereinafter referred to as the D.C.) heard the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and dismissed the said appeal (Annexure-G). Evidently, having regard to the order made by the D.C., the Controller by his letter No. RQC SR. 655 dated 11-6-80, received by the petitioner on 17-6-80, directed the petitioner to vacate the aforesaid premises within 7 days from the date of receipt of that letter (Annexure-H) . In his petition presented on 21.6.80 the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 17-5-80 and 11.6.80 of the Controller (Annexures E and H) and the order dated 9-6-80 of the D. C. (Annexure-G).