P SRINIVASIAH Vs. DY COMMR BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitioner Shri P. Srinivasaiah is a landlord of the premises in question. According to him, the premises became vacant on 30-7-80 and, under section 4(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, he informed the vacancy to the Rent Controller on 11-8-1980 as per Annexure-A. Along with the vacancy report, he made a request to the Rent Controller to release the premises in his favour for his personal use and occupation. The Rent Controller issued the vacancy report and Respt-3 got a direction from the Divisional Commissioner for allotment. The Rent Controller considering the claim of the landlord, rejected his request and allotted the premises in favour of respondent-3. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. Annexures 'D' and 'F' are the copies of the said orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner vehemently- contended that the Rent Controller laboured under a wrong impression, of law that it is necessary for the landlord to prove his reasonable and bona fide requirement as if under Clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of sec. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, instead of finding out whether the requirement of the owner's is bona fide as contemplated under section 5 of the said Act. He, therefore, submitted that the very approach of the Rent Controller to the facts of the present case was legally erroneous. He further submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner never considered that aspect. Hence, according to him, the order of the Rent Controller, confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, has to be quashed.

(3.) The order of the Rent Controller is at Annexure-D. The Rent Controller, in para-5 of the order, has stated thus: