B V CHITTIBABU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the Order dated 18-4-1995 in hrc/dc/a-152 of 1994-95 passed by the second respondent and for a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction declaring that Order dated 14-3-1995 passed by the third respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable and to consider the matter afresh by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence before it in hrc/acc(e)274 of 1994 and proceed with the case thereafter.

(2.) the facts giving rise to this petition in brief are as hereunder: the revenue inspector attached to the office of third respondent, house rent and accommodation controller, bangalore, gave a report dated 23-8-1994 to the effect that the premises bearing No. 644, ground floor, first stage, indiranagar, bangalore, had fallan vacant. The controller issued a notice to the petitioner-landlord to show cause as to why the vacancy was not reported. The petitioner by his reply dated 30-8-1994 while admitting that the premises had fallen vacant, pleaded that he was out of station and when he returned to bangalore he received the notice and that he had however the intention of informing the controller about the premises falling vacant after returning to bangalore. He further stated that he needed the premises for occupation of his son who was expected to be transferred from ranchi, where he was presently employed. Though in that letter he stated that he was enclosing form I under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka rent control ACT (the act' for short), he had not done so. Thereafter the controller suo motu notified the vacancy on 24-9-1994 and issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 4 of the ACT along with a copy of the notification. The fourth respondent and another applicant applied for allotment. The petitioner filed objections contending that the building was constructed in 1991 and was less than 5 years in age and as such it was exempted from provisions of part ii of the act. He also contended that the premises were required for the use of his son. He produced a certificate issued by the bank to show that he had taken a loan from the bank on 20-4-1991 and 21-5-1991 for construction of that house and also a certificate issued by the keb to the effect that installation No. Meh. 26398 was serviced on 3-12-1991. Corporation notice revising the annual value from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 31,800/- with effect from 1-4-1992 was also produced. The revenue inspector produced another certificate issued by the keb which showed that installation bearing rr no. 3eh 18441 and 3eh26398 in premises No. 664, I main road, indiranagar, were serviced on 20-9-1986 and 5-12-1991 respectively. One of the applicants also produced an extract of corporation assessment register to show that premises No. 644 was assessed even prior to 1989. Though the petitioner was asked to produce the sanctioned plan of ground floor to show as to when it was constructed the petitioner did not produce it on the ground that he had given the plan to the bank. The rent controller inspected the premises and found that installation No. 26398 pertained to the first floor and the installation No. 3eh 18441 pertained to the ground floor. On the material on record the controller held that the premises in question namely, ground floor of No. 644 was constructed in 1986 itself, that the letter of the bank showed that the loan was given for construction of first floor and that the objection taken by the petitioner regarding the age of the b.uilding was not true. She also held that the petitioner's claim that he requires it for his son's occupation was not acceptable as at the time of the inspection she found that the premises in question was in occupation of one p. Vishwanathan and family and the petitioner's son was employed and living at ranchi. As the fact that the vacancy had arisen had been admitted by the petitioner himself in his reply to the notice, the controller allotted the premises to the fourth respondent. The deputy commissioner before whom the petitioner challenged the Order has dismissed the appeal affirming the Order of the controller.

(3.) after the filing of this petition the state government has issued a notification No. Re 77 ghr 95, dated 24-4-1995 in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the ACT directing that provisions of sections 4, 5 and 10-a of the said ACT shall cease to be applicable to the area within the limits of the bangalore city with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette.the notification is published in an extraordinary gazette dated 24-4-1995. Thus from 24-4-1995 the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 10-a have ceased to apply to bangalore city.