SEETHA BAI Vs. RENT AND ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the first respondent initiated proceedings under Section 10-a of the Karnataka Rent Control Act to evict the unauthorised occupant. The petitioner who is the owner questioned the proceedings and asserted that the building was not controlled by the Provisions of part-ii because it was a new building. The proceedings were initiated in January 1986. But according to the landlady-petitioner the building was constructed and completed by about October or november 1985 and therefore the relevant Provisions of the act were not applicable to the building in question in January 1986.

(2.) the landlady pointed out that there was some dispute between the landlady and the Bangalore city corporation and therefore she had to file a suit for declaration regarding her title to the site and this suit was decreed on 21-7-1984. Only thereafter in the vacant site the landlady was able to complete the construction. Till the said date, in view of the pendency of the litigation, she was not in a position to complete the construction. The landlady sought to corroborate this stand by producing the endorsement issued by the corporation in connection with the tax assessment of the building. This endorsement shows that the landlady applied on 23-11-1985 requesting for the assessment of the building in question.

(3.) the first respondent, however, rejected the case of the petitioner. He held that the document produced by the landlady to not reveal whether the premises in question completed 5 years from the date of completion of the construction. Therefore he proceeded on the assumption that the then occupant of the premises who occupied in the year 1984 was an unauthorised occupant. Consequently, respondent-2 before the rent & accommodation controller, Bangalore, was directed to vacate the premises. The landlady filed an appeal before the special deputy commissioner who affirmed this order. The deputy commissioner also proceeds on the assumption that the burden of proving that the building was not covered by the relevant Provisions of the act was on the landlady.