FERNANDIS Vs. HOUSE RENT CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by Respondent-2 holding the petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant of the premises in question and directing his eviction therefrom under Section 10-A of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act).

(2.) To appreciate the points involved in this case it is necessary to briefly state the facts of the case.

(3.) The petitioner has been in occupation of a portion of the premises bearing No. 11, Moyenville Road, Langford Town, Shantinagar, Bangalore-25, on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-, having taken the same on lease from one Mrs. P.J. Middieton. He claims to be in occupation of the premise since the year 1976 He has further alleged having filed a declaration under Section 31-B of the Act for regularisation of his occupancy ; but so far no orders are passed thereon. Under a registered sale deed dated 9-10-1981 the said Mrs. P.J. Middleton sold the entire property, including the premises in question, to respondent-3. It is alleged that instead of seeking his eviction in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, respondent-3 was adopting short cut methods to some how oust him from the premises and in furtherance of his intention allegedly initimated the Rent Controller that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the premises. While the said allegation is denied and there is nothing to show that any such intimation was ever given by Respondeat-3, it transpires that on the report of the Revenue Inspector the Rent Controller initiated proceedings in H.R.C. Misc. No. 189 of 1981 against the petitioner as well as respondent-3 under Section 10-A of the Act. In response to the notice issued by the Rent Controller the petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller and urged that he is not an unauthorised occupant, and, in any event, since he has been in occupation of the premises from the year 1976 and has sought for regularisation of his occupancy by filing his declaration under Section 31-B of the Act, the proceedings should be dropped. Upon hearing the parties and upon consideration of the material on record and following the ruling of this Court in Rajaiah v. H.R.C., 1964(2) Mys. L.J. Sh. N. Item No. 40 the Rent Controller dropped the proceedings holding that since the petitioner has been in occupation of the premises for five years, it will cause harassment to him if he is evicted. The proceedings against the owner (respondent-3) was also dropped holding that since he had not let out the premises to the petitioner there was no case against him.