S K BEERANNA Vs. KWALITY RESTAURANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Residential premises No.48 (Old No. 1/3), situated at Linden Street, Palmgrove Road, Austin Town, Bangalore, is owned by the appellants in Writ Appeal No.291 of 1990. That was leased to the 1 st respondent in the year 1969. Subsequent to the lease, occupation of the 1st respondent was regularised under Sections 31B and 31C of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On or before 20-8-1976, the 1st respondent acquired 2 residential premises, viz., No.59, 1st Floor, Residency Road, Bangalore, and No.26, Wellington Street, Bangalore. In view of the said acquisition, the appellants/landlords filed a petition under Section 21A of the Act before the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore-1, for eviction of the 1st respondent. The case was registered as No.HRC.ACC.21.A(1)/1989 on his file. By an order dated 27-9-1989 the House Rent and Accommodation Controller directed the eviction of the 1st respondent under Section 21A(2) of the Act. However, the 1 st respondent was granted one months time to vacate the premises. The Rent and Accommodation Controller further directed the appellants/landlords to report the vacancy under Section 4 of the Act after possession of the premises was obtained by them. This order of the House Rent and Accommodation Controller was challenged by the 1st respondent in Writ Petition No. 18420 of 1989 in so far as it had been directed to be evicted. The matter came up before our learned brother Justice Murlidher Rao, who, by the order . dated 2-1-1990, held that under Section 21 A(2) of the Act there was no possibility of ordering eviction against the 1st respondent. In the course of the order, the learned Judge also made certain observations against the House Rent and Accommodation Controller. While allowing the Writ Petition, the learned Judge also directed the appellants to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- as Advocate Fee. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/landlords have come up in appeal in Writ Appeal No.291 of 1990.

(2.) In so far as strictures have been passed against the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Writ Appeal No.1192 of 1990 has been filed by the House Rent and Accommodation Controller in his personal capacity, while qua House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Writ Appeal No.935 of 1990 has been filed. Therefore, all these three appeals arise out of the same order of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) Sri, U.L. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.291 of 1990, submits that, no doubt, under Section 21 A(2) of the Act there is no specific power conferred on the House Rent and Accommodation Controller to direct eviction; but he submits that reaching such conclusion, as the learned single Judge has done, would amount to rendering the Section itself ineffective. If really the object of the Section (Section 21A) is to secure accommodation to such of those landlords who have been deprived of their enjoyment and occupation by reason of induction of tenants, whereas such tenants have acquired other residential premises, to continue the order of allotment will affect the landlords harshly. In support of his submission Sri Rao placed reliance on the Decisions of this Court in T. VAMANA KINI AND ETC. vs U. RAMACHANDRA PAI and in DR. R. RAJASHEKAR vs S. NARAYAN. In this case, there is no justification for the learned single Judge to award costs of Rs. 2,000/- against the landlords, because the order of the House Rent and Accommodation Controller makes it very clear that the House Rent and Accommodation Controller did nothing more than relying on the Judgment of this Court. Therefore, that part of the order awarding costs requires to be set aside.