ASWATHARAMIAH Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order made by the House Rent and Accommodation Controller (hereafter referred to as the Controller) in HRC.595 ACC(B) 76 dt.17-9-1976 Ext.'A' and the appellate order made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore in HRC Appeal No. 188 of 1976-77 dt.21-10-76 Ext.'B', affirming the order made by the Controller.

(2.) The undisputed facts that may be noticed are these: The premises in question bearing No.30 (1st floor) Rama lyengar Road, Visweswara- puram, Bangalore belongs to one Ratna. The owner has executed an usufructuary deed of mortgage in favour of the petitioner on the 4th of August 1976. After the petitioner thus became the mortgagee in possession of the premises in question, he submitted an intimation to the Controller as required by S.4(1) of the Karnataka, Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act) . The petitioner sought permission from the Controller to occupy the premises himself, stating that he is now residing in the house of a relative of his in Jayanagar and that he would like to stay in the mortgaged house and bring his parents and his brothers to stay in the house in question, who are now residing in the State of. Andhra Pradesh. The third respondent, who is the Superintendent of Police, Corps of Detectives, CID, Bangalore, secured a directive in his favour for allotment of the premises. It appears that the third respondent opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of permission to occupy the premises on the ground that the said request is not bona fide and genuine. He assigned several reasons questioning the bona fides of the petitioner. The Controller rejected the prayer of the petitioner for permission to occupy the premises and proceeded to. allot the premises in favour of the third respondent. The petitioned challenged the said order before the appellate authority the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Dist. The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed the order of the Controller. Hence, this writ petition under Art.226(1)of the Constitution.

(3.) Shri B. Vedantaiengar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the impugned orders are vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. He submitted that the petitioner's prayer for penrission to occupy the premises has been rejected on irrelevant grounds.