N C PATIL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition succeeds without the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner, who has remained absent although this writ petition is of the year 1988 and pending in this court for the last 4 years. Be that as it may, the short question arising for consideration is whether a Rent Controller acting under the provisions of the Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can levy a fine as proposed under the impugned order at Annexure-B.

(2.) The writ petition is the culmination of the fear of a landlord who was charged by the Rent Controller of having illegally inducted somebody into occupancy and therefore, liable for action under Section 10-A of the Act.

(3.) Section 10-A, reads:" 10-A. Eviction by the Controller.(1) Where in accordance with the provision of Section 4, the vacancy of any building is required to be intimated to the Controller and is not so intimated, and the Controller believes or has reason to believe that any person has in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 4 occupied the building or any part thereof, he may by notice in writing, call upon the person in occupation to show cause, within a time to be fixed by the Controler, why such person should not be convicted therefrom. (2) If the person to whom a notice was issued under sub-section (1) fails to appear before the Controller, or having appeared, fails to satisfy the Controller that he is entitled to remain in occupation of the building, the Controller may, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken against him under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, direct him by order in writing to vacate the building within such period as may be specified in the order and deliver possession thereof to the Controller. (3)(a) Upon service of an order under sub-section (2), the person against whom an order is made and every person claiming under him shall vacate the building and deliver possession thereof to the Controller. If the building is not vacated and its possession delivered to the Controller within the period specified in the order, the Controller may summarily dispossess the persons in occupation and take possession of the building and thereupon the provisions of Sections 4,5, 8,9 and 10 shall apply to the building as if intimation of vacancy of the building was given to the Controller on the date on which he took possession of it. (b) The provision of sub-section (2) of Section 10 shall apply to any action taken by the Controller under clause (a)." The aforesaid provision enjoins the Controller to make an order for vacating the premises by one who in the view of the Controller was not entitled to occupy the same and even so having occupied the same without due authority of law; the concomitant action to be taken by the Controller is to rid the premises in question of the alleged unauthorised occupant. The Act also enjoins action being taken against the errent landlord who had in contravention of the provisions of the Act inducted into possession someone unauthorisedly as stipulated under Section 4(3), that enjoins some punishment to be imposed in that behalf on the errent landlord. Section 4(3) reads: