C N RAMACHANDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application arises from the order dated 28-6-1994 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Vsanth Kumar dismissing the writ petition whereby the petitioner had challenged the order dated 21-6-1994 passed by 3rd respondent in the appeal viz., by the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No. 13/93-94 the contentions that had been raised before Brother R. V. Vasanth Kumar was to the effect that the Rent Controller (sic) while notifying the premises, mentioned the rate of rent for the permises some other than Rs. 3,500/ -. Petitioner's case is that Rs. 3,500/- was shown as rental for the building as per column No.9 of the Form No. l. He had submitted that in notifying the rental either as Rs. 2,000/ - or as Rs. 1,500/ -, the Rent Controller had committed irregularity and he ought to have notified the rental as Rs. 3,500/- and he has not done that. The notification of vacancy was illegal and allotment was illegal. Before Hon'ble Justice R. V. Vasanth Kumar reference was also made to single Judge decision of this Court in the case of Girja Rudra v. The House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore City, AIR 1978 Kant 34. Hon'ble Justice R. V. Vasanth Kumar considered the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and opined that so-far-as the allotment is considered it is confirmed in full subject to allottee paying a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/- per month and disposed of that writ petition. Having felt aggrieved from that judgment, the Land Lord/writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, which Division Bench consisted of Mr. G. G. Nanavathy, Hon'ble Chief Justice and Mr. A. J. Sadashiva, Hon'ble Judge. A Contention was raised by the counsel for the appellant Sri. Aravind Kumar apart from objecting the amount of rent that appellant had made various other grievances were raised but those points had not been considered in view of that contention, the Division Bench passed the order "If that is so, it is open to the appellants to file a review petition before the learned single Judge for the review of the earlier order" and rejected the appeal. Taking note of the order of the Division Bench, the petitioner has filed this review application.

(2.) I have heard Sri. Aravind Kumar and Sri. K. Suman.

(3.) Sri. Aravind Kumar appearing for the appellant submitted that the rate of rent or amount of rent that has been mentioned in Column 9 of the application was Rs. 3,500/- which had been indicated, by the petitioner landlord as for the rental and amenities. He again raised the same contention which he had pressed before the Hon'ble Justice R. V. Vasanth Kumar and placed before me the decision of this Court in the case of Girja Rudra v. The House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore City, AIR 1978 Kant 34. Sri. Aravind Kumar laid emphasis on the expression used by the learned Judge that there was illegality committed by the authority in fixing the rental of the building earlier as Rs. 800/- and submitted that when the order was challenged the learned single Judge of this Court had also taken the view that this was illegal and allowed the writ petition. It is his contention that leraned single Judge while deciding the writ petition should have remitted the matter back to the 2nd respondent. He submitted that wrong figure had been mentioned in the column of rent in the notification as Rs. 1,500/- while landlord had indicated in his intimation of vacancy in Form 1, Col. 9 as Rs. 3,500/ - This contention was heard for good length of time almost for an hour. No other contention has been raised before me by Sri. Aravind Kumar. It may be mentioned that at this stage (sic) Sri Aravind Kumar has raised no other new argument nor any other ground taken in the writ petition has been pressed before me. Before the Division Bench it was alleged as some of his pleas or arguments which had been urged before learned single Judge had not been considered by the learned single Judge (Hon'ble Vasant Kumar, J.) who had decided the writ petition but I may repeat no new point or no other point or plea taken in writ petition has been pressed. However except he alleged wrong figure as rent i.e. Rs. 1,500/- as per month. It is expected from the Bar to be fair in arguing and drafting the memo of appeal or writ petition. When we sitting on the Bench give credence and rely on the statement of the Bar, we would expect the Bar to be fair and just and right in making any statement or in drafting the ground. What contentions have been raised by Sri. Aravind Kumar at present; I have mentioned earlier and no other contention so-far has been raised and this has been contention which appears only to have been raised before the learned single Judge. Such conduct does not bring a fair name either to the Bar or to the counsel. The observations of the Division Bench is to the effect - "The contention of the learned Advocate for appellant is that apart from the objection regarding amount of rent the appellant made various other grievances and those points have not been considered. If that is so it is open to him to file a review petition before the learned single Judge for the review of the earlier order". Thus it appears that Sri. Aravind Kumar had said before the Division Bench that he had raised certain points and which were not considered by the learned single Judge. In the circumstance above narrated a conduct of counsel cannot be said to be appreciable one or fair.