B A RAMASWAMY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order for allotment of a 'residential premises for non-residential purposes, made by the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Hassan, in HRC.23/70-71 and the order of affirmance made by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, in B.Dis. R.Mis.1/70-71.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of a residential house in K.R.Purana Extension of Hassan. He intimated the vacancy of the said premises to the Rent Controller. One of the applicants was the 3rd respondent herein in his capacity of a President of the Rural Education Society. It is not in dispute that the premises was intended by the allottee to be used as an educational institution, and therefore, the purpose being non-residential. An objection was taken on behalf of the petitioner before the Authorities below that no allotment could be made for a non-residential purpose without the express permission of the landlord. This contiention has been negatived on the ground that S.11 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, vested jurisdiction in the Authority to allot the premises for a non-residential purpose.

(3.) This view of the Authorities below in regard to the scope and ambit of S.11 of the Rent Control Act, is clearly erroneous. S.11 of that Act provides for procedure for conversion of 3 residential building into a non-residential one at the instance of an owner. Sub-sec. (1) thereof enacts a prohibition operating against the owner or the landlord-whereby he is specifically injuncted not to convert a residential building into a non-residential one without the permission in writing of the Controller. Sub-sec. (2) provides for a deemed permission, in case any application of the owner or the landlord is not considered by the Controller within 60 days of its presentation. Sub-sec. (3) provides for punishment of an owner or landlord who contravenes sub-sec. (1) thereof. A close analysis of these provisions would clearly show that the condition precedent that ought to be fulfilled before the Controller could exercise his jurisdiction under S.11 of the Act, is that an owner or landlord of a residential building should have presented an application for conversion of his residential building into a non-residential one. In the instant case, the landlord has not sought for any such permission. Indeed, he has expressed his dissent for the use of his residential building for non-residential purposes. In this state of affairs, the orders impugned herein are clearly without jurisdiction.