S A HOKRANI Vs. S KOUSLYABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference made by the learned single Judge this writ petition is posted before us for hearing.

(2.) The petitioner having now retired from service he is no longer interested in prosecuting the petition. But as the question that arises for consideration in this case is of considerable importance, we propose to consider the merit of the contentions raised in this case.

(3.) The facts of the case are these : The landlady of premises No. 51/1, Out house, Surveyor Street, Basavangudi, Bangalore-4 reported the vacancy of the premises to the Controller, Bangalore City, Bangalore and requested for release of the premises for her occupation. After this vacancy was notified, the petitioner and seven others applied for allotment of the premises. The petitioner had also obtained a direction by the Divisional Commissioner under S.8(2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for allotting the premises in his favour. The Controller held that the claim of the landlady was not genuine and reasonable. He held that in view of the enunciation made in Mohammad Yacoob Hussain v. Mahendar Kaur, (1978) 1 Kant LJ 374, the petitioner is not entitled for the issue of a direction under S.8(2) of the Act in his favour and is also not entitled to claim any preference under R.4(1) (B) of the Karnataka Rent Control Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), and allotted the premises to one C. S. Anantharaman, Upper Division Clerk, in the Office of the General Manager, Telecommunications, Bangalore-9. Aggrieved by the said order both the landlady and the petitioner filed appeals before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore and both the appeals came to be dismissed. The claim of the petitioner was negatived following the decision of this Court in Mohammad Yacoob Hussain's case. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the said order.