R RAJASHEKAR Vs. S NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both tenant and owner, have challenged the order of Rent and Accommodation Controller, City area, Bangalore passed under Section 21-A of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the extent they are aggrieved.

(2.) Three contentions urged by Sri U.L. Narayana Rao, Learned Counsel for petitioner, in first case, to invalidate impugned order are-(i) no action could have been taken under Section 21-A of the Act in view of pendency of proceedings under Section 21 ; (ii) not preceded by a notice as contemplated under proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21-A of the Act ; and (iii) in the absence of pro-vision similar to Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21-A no action could have been taken under Sub-section (2) of Section 21-A of the Act.

(3.) Undisputedly, petitioner in first case is the tenant of premises and petitioner in second case is the owner. Order of eviction passed under Clause (h) of Section 21(1) of the Act is the subject matter in C.R.P. No. 90 of 1984 on the file of this Court. During pendency of this proceeding, on an application filed by owner, second respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 21-A of the Act.