SRINIVASA MURTHY Vs. SHATRUGNAIAH SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the petitioner in W.P.No. 19578/82. He challenged the order of the 3rd respondent (Rent & Accommodation Controller) as affirmed by the 4th respondent (Special Dy. Commissioner). By the impugned order, the premises in question was allotted to the 2nd respondent. 1st respondent is a rival claimant to the title of the premises.

(2.) Appellant claims title under a will left by one Seethamma. 1st respondent traces his title through the will of one Rama Setty. According to 1st respondent, Seethamma had only a limited interest in the premises and the ownership vested in Rama Setty. It is unnecessary to go into this question, as it is outside the purview of the present proceedings.

(3.) Proceedings under Section 4 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), were initiated by the 3rd respondent, on the basis of a letter written by one Narayana Setty, stating that, be was a tenant of the premises and that he vacated it. Similarly, 1st respondent also reported vacancy. The appellant contended that, Narayana Setty was never a tenant, but was living with late Seethamma, as a close relative and that he was also residing in the premises. Narayana Setty, in the meanwhile withdrew his earlier letter. The fact that appellant was residing at the time of spot inspection by the 3rd respondent and continues to reside therein, is not in dispute.