GIRIJA RUDRA Vs. HOUSE RENT AND ACCOMMODATION CONLR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of premises No.4, 9th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore-3 which consists of a ground floor and a first floor. With a view to let out the first floor portion of the premises for non-residential purposes, she approached the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Controller'), who is the 1st respondent in this writ petition, for permission to convert the said first floor portion into a non-residential premises. The 1st respondent accorded the necessary permission. Thereafter, the petitioner notified the vacancy in respect of the first floor portion of the premises on 18-11-76 in the precribed Form-I, a copy of which is produced in the case as Ext.A. The Rent Controller notified the vacancy on the notice board of his office by Notification dt. 19-11-76, a copy of which is produced as Ext.B. Among the particulars stated in the said Notification, one pertains to the rent of the premises notified, which has been indicated as Rs.800 per month. Ext.C is the copy of the order made by the Rent Controller, which does not bear any date, directing that the premises in question should be notified showing Rs.800 p.m. as the rent of the premises. Being aggrieved by the Notification of the premises showing the rent of the premises at Rs.800 p.m., the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Dist, Bangalore, which authority by his order dt.25th March, 1977, has dismissed the appeal. It is in this background that the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate relief under Article 226(1)(b)of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The principal contention urged by Sri B. S. Sundar Raj, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Controller, functioning under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), and the Rules made thereunder viz, the Karnataka Rent Control Rules, 1961 hereinafter referred to was the 'Rules'), has no competence to fix the rent of the premises notified under sub-sec (1) of Section 4 of the Act and to notify the rent so fixed in the Notification published under sub-rule(ii) of Rule 3 of the Rules. It was maintained that the only appropriate stage at which the rent of the premises can be specified is at the time of making the final order of allotment under sub-sec(4) of Section 8 of the Act.

(3.) Sub-section (1) of S.4 imposes an obligation on the landlord to notify to the Rent Controller the vacancy within 15 days after the building becomes vacant. Sub-rule(i) of Rule 3 requires such intimation to be given by the landlord in Form-I in triplicate. Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Rent Controller after receiving the notice of intimation in accordance with sub-sec (1) of S.4 read with sub-rule(i) of Rule 3. Under sub-rule(ii) of Rule 3, the Rent Controller, after receipt of intimation of vacancy has to specify the date of hearing for considering the causes, if any, shown by the landlord and other persons. He is also required to send a copy of the intimation of vacancy and report the date to which the case is posted for selecting the public authority or the person in whose favour an order may be made under S.8, to the authority specified therein. Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3 further requires the Rent Controller to notify on the notice board of his office the particulars of the building given in Items 1, 2, 4 and 9 of Form-I and also to notify the date to which the case is posted. He is also required to keep a copy of the intimation in his office for inspection of all persons desiring to see it. The landlord is also required to be notified of the date of the first hearing as fixed by the Rent Controller.