J TGOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. H SRAJA IYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the House Rent Control Appeal No. 62 of 48-49 and House Rent Control Revision Petition No. 99 of 49-50 and for quashing the orders passed thereon.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner purchased a house in Bangalore on 14-11-1947 from its previous owners, under whom the first respondent was a tenant for a number of years. He issued a notice on 18-12-1947 terminating the tenancy from 1-2-1948. Another notice was also issued on 1-4-1948 terminating the tenancy from 1-5-48 and claiming possession of the house for his bona fide occupation. In the first of these notices the petitioner alleged that he purchased the house for his bona fide occupation as he found it difficult to carry on his business and activities in public life from Robertsonpet, K. G. F. and also because some of the members of his family had been latterly falling frequently ill with the result that they had to undergo treatment in Bangalore continuously. In reply, the first respondent challenged the bona fides of the petitioner in demanding possession of the house and pleaded that he has been in occupation of the house ever since 1936, using it for residence and a lawyer's office and that as he is unable to find any other suitable accommodation for carrying on his profession he is unable to vacate the premises. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a case before the House Rent Controller under Section 8 of the Mysore House Rent Control Order of 1948. On the pleadings and the evidence of the petitioner who was the only witness examined in the case, the House Rent Controller held that the house was needed for the bona fide occupation of the petitioner and allowed the petition directing the first respondent to quit and deliver possession of the premises to the petitioner. Thereupon the first respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Labour in Mysore, who however, came to the conclusion that the reasons set forth by the petitioner were not convincing and in reversal of the order of the House Rent Controller, held that the petitioner had not made out a case for eviction under Section 9 (3) (a) of the said Control Order. The petitioner then availed himself of the remedy under Section 14 (5) of the said Control Order by filing a revision petition before the Government who confirmed the order of the Labour Commissioner in the following terms:

(3.) Respondent 2 is the Labour Commissioner and respondent 3 is the Government of Mysore State. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner is that under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is entitled to hold and dispose of the property as he likes. Sri Rajah Iyer, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, touched this aspect rather faintly but abandoned the contention during the course of the arguments.