UMA S GODBOLE Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN THE LIGHT OF THE PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS IN HRC. NO. 1432 OF 1985 AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE COURT-BELOW, IT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE SAID THE PETITIONER WAS AN UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANT AND THEREFORE LIABLE FOR ACTION UNDER SECTION 10-A OF THE KRC ACT. THE PETITIONER IS THE LANDLORD AND ADMITTEDLY HAD TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES BY THE ORDER OF COURT MADE UNDER SECTION 21(L)(H) OF THE ACT. ON THIS ASPECT, THERE IS NO DISPUTE. BUT THE RENT CONTROLLER TAKES THE STAND THAT THE PREMISES BEING OCCUPIED BY THE NEPHEW OF THE LANDLORD, WHEREAS THE LANDLORD WAS LIVING ELSEWHERE. BECAUSE, MERELY A NEPHEW OF THE LANDLORD WAS STAYING THERE, IT DID NOT BECOME VACANT AND HE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A PERSON WHO IS AN UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANT. NEPHEW IS NEXT KIN OF THE LANDLORD. IT MEANS THAT THE LANDLORD IS IN JURAL POSSESSION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RENT CONTROLLER'S ORDER IS WHOLLY UNTENABLE AND ITS AFFIRMATION BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IS AGAIN A PLAIN ERROR. HENCE, IT IS I ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ALSO THAT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THE MATTER SHALL REST HERE. RULE AFFIRM. NO COSTS.