MAIMUNNISA BEGUM Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlady of Premises No. 37, Infantry Road, situated in the Civil Station, Bangalore. By his order dated May 29, 1965, the House Rent Controller allotted the premises to respondent No. 3 on a monthly rent of Rs. 175. Against this decision the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner in H. R. C. Appeal No. 315 of 1965-86. The appeal was rejected on June 18, 1965, upholding the order of the House Rent Controller and his findings on facts. It is this order which is challenged in the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of allotment and the order confirming that order passed by the House Rent Controller and the Deputy Commissioner respectively.

(2.) The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are as follows :-The premises had linen in the occupation of one Mrs. May Hackett as tenant. She left the premises. On failure of the landlady to report the vacancy, the Rent Controller directed by an order dated May 4, 1965 that the vacancy be notified and a notice should he issued to the landlady. The landlady filed an application on 8-4-1965 stating that she wanted at least 6 months to attend to the extensive repairs and reconstruction of the premises and that she would report the vacancy on completion of the work. The 3rd respondent and some others submitted applications for allotment. On receiving intimation of the vacancy, the State Government passed an order on May 6, 1965, in pursuance of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") directing that the premises in question be allotted in favour of Sri A.R. Naizamuddin, Deputy Commissioner of Police (respondent No. 3). On receipt of the notice aforesaid, the landlady filed her objections staring that she wanted the premises for the use of her son for starting some cottage industry and that it should not be allotted to anybody. The petitioner appeared through counsel before the Rent Controller and examined 4 witnesses in support of her contentions. On considering the evidence, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the building was not in such a bad condition as to render it unfit for occupation and that there was no evidence to show that the Corporation authorities had certified the building to be unfit for habitation. As regards the petitioner's claim that the building was required for the use of her son, the Rent Controller rejected this contention holding that it was an afterthought and was not at all bona fide. In his opinion neither the objections raised by the landlady nor the enquiries made by him disclosed any valid reasons against provisional allotment made by him. He accordingly confirmed the order of provisional allotment in favour of respondent No, 3 and directed the landlady to deliver possession of the allotted premises to the allottee on June 5, 1985 under Section 10 of the Act.

(3.) In the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, the correctness of these two conclusions on facts was challenged by petitioner; but on an exhaustive discussion of the evidence, the Deputy Commissioner upheld those conclusions. The petitioner contended before him that the Rent Controller had committed an irregularity while issuing a notice to the appellant under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act, as he had not given days' time from the date of the receipt of the notice by the applicant to set forth her objections. It was also contended that the Rent Controller had erred in declining to call for the records of the State Government leading to the issue of a direction for the allotment of the premises under Section 8 (2) of the Act for allotting the premises in favour of respondent No. 3. The Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the summoning of the records from the Government could not have been of any use in deciding the allotment. In view of the conclusions reached by him, he dismissed the petitioner's appeal,