DENA BANK HUBLI Vs. SPECIAL DY COMMR DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Dena Bank, in this proceeding, is represented by its Principal Officer at the Branch Office at Hubli. The Bank is aggrieved by an order dt. 22-12-1983 made by the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Dharwad in proceedings under S. 10 A of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), by which premises No. 103 situated in Hubli within the limits of Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation was held to be vacant and therefore liable to be allotted in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Act and further that the Bank was in unauthorised occupation of the said premises not being a tenant. Further, the Controller held that one of the officals of the Bank, namely, the Manager was in unauthorised occupation of the premises in question without the same being allotted by the Controller in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by that, the said officer-Bank Manager went up in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner the authority prescribed under the Act inter alia contending that the Controller had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against him as the Bank was the tenant of the premises under the landlord and that the Bank had been paying rents regularly; that the building was never vacant in the sense that the tenancy had not ceased by operation of law or by mutual consent of the landlord and the tenant and there was, therefore, no vacancy required to be reported and as such, the provisions contained in S. 10 A of the Act were not attracted. In substance, the argument was, the Rent Controller's order was without jurisdiction apart from being contrary to the evidence on record and illegal. The Deputy Commissioner disregarded the contentions advanced for and on behalf of the Bank by the Branch Manager and confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by these two orders, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(2.) The 1st and 2nd respondents in this proceeding are the Special Deputy Commissioner and the Rent Controller The 3rd respondent is the landlord. It is only the 3rd respondent who is represented before me.

(3.) From detailed perusal of the orders in question what emerges is that the landlord appears to have set-up the Controller to set in motion the law. It is not possible to determine with any degree of certainty the motive of the landlord to commence such action. That when the matter was actually investigated by the Revenue Inspector, it emerges from the evidence, the building was in the occupation of the Branch Manager and therefore, not physically vacant, but on the other hand, it was occupied. But that has not been the basis on which the Rent Controller and the Deputy Commissioner have proceeded but created a vacancy where there was none. On the facts which were not disputed their reasoning was that the first Branch Manager who occupied the premises as his residence had vacated it and for a long period the building had not been occupied by the succeeding Branch Manager. But the proceedings themselves were initiated when the succeeding Manager was in occupation of the building. Therefore, the reasoning that the first Branch Manager-occupant vacated and there was a vacancy neither reported by the Branch Manager nor the landlord and that the second Manager occupied the same without an order of allotment by the Rent Controller and it was leased by the landlord as such without reporting the vacancy and liable for action under S. 10-A of the Act. The Bank produced a series of Rent receipts duly signed and admitted as such by the landlord showing that it was the Bank which was the tenant and not the Branch Manager. It was contended on behalf of the Branch Manager and the Bank that the Bank was the tenant and the Bank never terminated the tenancy and therefore, merely keeping the house in question vacant for an indefinite period did not in itself attract the provisions of the Act having regard to S. 4 of the Act. That argument has not been accepted.