SURESH HEBLIKAR Vs. HOUSE RENT AND ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ appeals the following questions of law arise for consideration :

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows :- The appellant in W.A. No. 1703/82 is the owner (hereinafter referred to as the Land Lord) of the premises bearing No. 405 (Ground floor), Diagonal Road, III Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore which consists of a ground floor and first floor. The ground floor of the premises became vacant. Thereafter, as required under the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act for short), the appellant reported the vacancy to the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Civil Area, Bangalore. The appellant in W.A. No. 1702/1982 had suffered an order of eviction at the hands of his landlord and according to the order of the Court he was required to vacate the premises on or before 31-12-1982. He made an application before the Rent and Accommodation Controller, for allotment of the ground floor of the house for his occupation. The fourth respondent-landlord gave his consent as be was living alone and he wanted some assistance and the appellant in W.A. No. 1702/1982 was stated to be a person closely known to the owner and he and his wife would be of great assistance to him, for attending to his needs. Respondent-3 in W. A. No, 1702/82 and respondent-4 in W.A.No. 1703, 82 who had also suffered an order of eviction was required to vacate the premises in which he was living by June 1982, applied for allotment.

(3.) There is no dispute that respondent-3 had registered his name as required under Explanation-3 of Sub-rule (15) of Rule 4(B) of the Rules on 24-6-1981 earlier to the registration of the name of the appellant in W.A.No. 1702/1982 who had registered his name on 17-9-1981. The Rent Controller, however, made an order on 21-10-1981 in favour of the appellant in W.A.No. 1702/82. Aggrieved by the said order respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, under Section 12 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 28-12-81. Aggrieved by the said order respondent-3 preferred W.P.No. 4141/1982 before this Court. Before the learned Single Judge, respondent-3 contended that in view of Rule 4(B)(5) read with second proviso, as he had registered his name earlier, he was entitled to the preference over the appellant in W.A.No 1702/1982. The third respondent contended that the view taken by the Rent Controller that the rules which prescribed priority of registration as a condition of eligibility for priority among the persons who were eligible for allotment on preferential basis was procedural in character and therefore he was not bound to follow it, was patently illegal. It was also the contention of respondent-3 that even registration of the name of appellant in W.A.No. 1702/82 was invalid as the registration was prior to the date on which he suffered an order of eviction. Both the contentions were accepted by the Learned Single Judge. The Writ Petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the Rent Controller to allot the house to the Writ Petitioner.