RAMACHANDRA Vs. RENT AND ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From the impugned order of the first respondent, it appears the concerned Revenue Inspector submitted a report to him stating that premises bearing No. 782, 16th Main, 20th Cross, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore has become vacant consequent upon the previous tenant vacating the premises, On the basis of the said report, the first respondent initiated suo motu proceedings, under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). At that stage, it seems the fourth respondent who is the owner of the premises reported the vacancy in terms of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner-tenant (who claims to be in actual occupation of the premises) entered appearance before the first respondent, and filed statement, stating that he has been in occupation of the premises and that he is the brother-in-law of the owner of the premises who was working in Bokaro Steel Plant at Bokaro at that point of time. It was also contended by him that the premises in question was constructed in the year 1987 and that since he has been in occupation of the premises from the year 1991, the provisions of Chapters II and III of the Act were not applicable to the building in question in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act.

(3.) The first respondent, however, has proceeded to allot the premises in favour of the third respondent. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred appeal to the second respondent and at the same time made an application for stay of the order of allotment. It appears the second respondent rejected his application for stay. Against the rejection of his application for stay the petitioner filed W.P. 11362/92 before this Court. This Court granted the stay sought by the petitioner and disposed of the Writ Petition directing the parties to appear before the second respondent on 4.5.1992 for participating in the appeal proceedings.