MANIKCHAND JOSHI Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER REVENUE BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these three writ petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore in HRC Appeal No. 7/1989-90, HRC Appeal No. 6/1989-90 and HRC Appeal No. 5/1989-90 respectively. the said appeals were preferred by the respective petitioners, before the Divisional Commissioner against the order dated 20-10-1989 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bangalore District, Bangalore on an application filed by respondents-3 to 6 in these three petitions under Section 37(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, (for short 'the Act'). the Divisional Commissioner in the said three appeals has confirmed the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) the facts necessary for the disposal of these three petitions, briefly stated, are as under: the present respondents-3 to 6 were the petitioners before the Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bangalore District, Bangalore. they had filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 37 of the Act praying for an order against opponents-8 to 18 therein directing them to put the applicants in vacant possession of the portion of the property described in the schedule to the said application. It was alleged that the said opponents that is to say, opponents-8 to 18 before the Deputy Commissioner were in occupation of the scheduled premises as lodgers. the case made out by the applicants who are respondents-3 to 6 in the present writ petitions was as under: Applicant-1, before the Deputy Commissioner, Smt. N. Bhagyalaxmi is the wife of late N.S. Nagaraj and applicants-2 to 4 before the Deputy Commissioner are the children of N.S. Nagaraj by Smt. Bhagyalaxmi. Nagaraj had leased out the property to opponents-1 to 7 (opponents before the Deputy Commissioner). the said applicants had filed eviction petition under Section 21(1) of the Act in HRC No. 268/1986 before the Small Cause Court on the ground that the properties in question were required for their use and occupation and also for immediate demolition and reconstruction. the said application culminated in an order dated 6-6-1987 for eviction. In the said case, the other opponents (opponents before the Deputy Commissioner) including the present petitioners in these three petitions, were not made parties as they were lodgers occupying the different portions of the property. However, the said order of eviction passed against opponents-1 to 7 was challenged by the rest of the opponents before this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 3427/1987 and 3614/1987. this Court in the said revision directed that the execution of the order passed by the Small Cause Judge in HRC No. 268/1986 be stayed. Opponents-1 to 7, however, delivered vacant possession of the portions to the applicants of the properties which were in their possession. the properties which were in the possession of opponents-8 to 18 continued to be in their possession. However, according to the case made out by the applicants, opponents-1 to 7 delivered symbolic possession of the same. they also issued notice to the other opponents to attorn to the instant respondents-3 to 6. the applicants also alleged in their application before the Deputy Commissioner that the same is required for immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction.

(3.) Opponents-8 to 18 resisted the petition by their separate objections filed be fore the Deputy Commissioner. In substance, they took up a contention that the applicants (instant respondents-3 to 6) are neither the owners'of the lodging house nor the managers thereof. they also took the other contentions which are reflected in detail in the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. the Special Deputy Commissioner is shown to have examined the instant respondent-3-Smt. Bhagyalaxmi as also one of the present writ petitioners that is to say, Champaklal. He also received in evidence certain documents on behalf of the present respondents-3 to 6. On a consideration of the evidence on record adduced before him and for the reasons reflected in his order dated 20-10-1989, the Special Deputy Commissioner took the view that the present respondents-3 to 6 are the owners of the lodging house and that they are entitled to recover the possession of the properties in question from opponents-8 to 18. It is also necessary to mention here that the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on an earlier occasion holding that the suit property is a lodging house.