A V KANDASWAMY Vs. SPECIAL DY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has come up before us upon a reference made by Venkatesh, J. It raises a short, but an important question as to the power of the Deputy Commissioner to grant stay in an appeal preferred against the order of allotment made by the Rent Controller.

(2.) The matter arises in this way : The petitioner is the owner of a building bearing No. 56/1, VIII Cross, IV Main, Malleswaram, Bangalore City, which he purchased in 1976. At the time of purchasing the building, the ground-floor was in the occupation of a tenant and the first-floor was in the occupation of the petitioner. On June 25, 1983, the tenant vacated the premises. The petitioner then occupied the ground-floor and intimated the vacancy of the first- floor to the Rent Controller. While intimating fhe vacancy he informed the Controller that he wanted the premises for his self-occupation for the purpose of storing his business articles like butter and ghee. The Rent Controller upon notifying the vacancy invited applications from intending tenants. There were in all five applicants, but only three of them were present at the time of hearing. Among those three applicants, respondent-3 Mallikarjunaswamy was selected and the Controller allotted the premises in his favour after rejecting the request of the petitioner for self-occupation. Challenging the validity of the order of the Controller, the petitioner appealed to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, under Section 12 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 with request to stay the order of allotment. But the Special Deputy Commissioner rejected that request and made an order dated September 6, 1983 in the following terms :

(3.) The primary question that arises for consideration is whether the appellate authority under Section 12 of the Rent Control Act was justified in refusing to stay the order of allotment challenged before him. The counsel for the petitioner urges that the refusal to stay the order appealed would be defeating the purpose of right of appeal provided under the statute and it would also cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that the appellate authority has exercised a sound discretion. There is no dire need for the petitioner to occupy the premises. Nor he could occupy the premises without permission of the Controller. Whereas the respondent is in need of the premises and it would, therefore, a hardship to the respondent if he is denied of possession during the pendency of the appeal. In support of his contention he also places reliance on the decision of this Court in P. Vasu v. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysore A others, W.P. No. 17041/1980 - D.D. 13-4-1983.