SAJJAN RAJ Vs. HOUSE RENT AND ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition 799/86 is preferred by the occupant of the premises in question bearing No. 16, Eagle Street, Bangalore-1. Writ petition 3547/86 is preferred by the landlord of the premises in question. The allottee of the premises in question is respondent-4 in the first writ petition and respondent-3 in the second one. The petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 16-10-1985 passed by the Rent and Accommodation Controller, Civil Area, Bangalore (for short, the 'Controller') in case No. HRC. ACC 499/85; and also the order dated 6-12-1985 passed by the Deputy Commisioner, Bangalore in HRC Civil Appeal Nos. 223 and 224 of 1985-86.

(2.) On a report made by the Revenue Inspector on 24-7-1985 that the premises in question was vacant as it was found locked, the Controller issued a notice to the landlord on 24-7-1985 to intimate the vacancy or to show cause as to why the vacancy should not be notified suo motu. The landlord by his reply dated 31-12-1985 informed the Controller that one Sri P.R. Sajjan Raj (the petitioner in W.P.799/86) has been in occupation of the premises and he is the Managing Director of the Chamundi Granites Private Ltd., that he has been paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,100/- per month; that the building is very old one and it is in a dilapidated condition and the repairs have to be undertaken on a very high cost; that as the tenant in occupation is in a position to spend his own money for effecting repairs, he is continued.

(3.) During the course of the proceeding, a lease deed dated 17-8-1985 and also the earlier one dated 31-5-1976 were also produced. The Controller prima facie was of the view that the premises was in unauthorised occupation ; therefore, he issued notice under Section 10A of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), to Sri Sajjan Raj and simultaneously initiated a proceeding for allotment of the premises. Both the proceedings are clubbed together. On enquiry, the Controller, on the basis of the material on record, has conic to the conclusion that Sajjan Raj has been in unauthorised occupation of the premises, therefore he is liable to be evicted. He has also come to the conclusion that the premises cannot be allotted to him even though he has made an application pursuant to notifying the vacancy, inasmuch as allotment of the premises in his favour would amount to putting premium on the unauthorised and illegal act of Sajjan Raj and the landlord. He has come to the conclusion that respondent-4 in Writ Petition 799/86, who is also 3rd respondent in the connected Writ Petition, deserves I to be allotted a premises as he has established he is in need of the premises. Accordingly, he has passed an order under Section 10A of the Act, against Sri Sajjan Raj and has allotted the premises in question in favour of Respondent-4, in W.P. 799/86.