SHANTHAMMA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is the owner of the premises bearing No. 1873/13 and 14 situated at sayyaji rao road, mandi mohalla, mysore. He has called in question the correctness of the order dated 27th july, 1993, a copy of which has been produced as annexure-a passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order dated 23rd november, 1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B passed by the second respondent treating the premises belonging to the petitioner as vacant and rejecting the claim of the petitioner for release of the said premises in her favour and allotting the same to the 3rd respondent.

(2.) THE facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this writ petition may be stated as under: on the report dated 7th august, 1990 submitted by the revenue inspector, the 2nd respondent by his notification dated 20th august, 1990 notified the premises in question as vacant and called for applications for allotment of the said premises. In the notification issued, the 2nd respondent fixed 27th august, 1990 as the last date for submission of the application. Pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed her objections and made a request to the 2nd respondent, to release the premises in question in her favour on the ground that the said premises is required for the purpose of carrying on business in non-vegetarian restaurant by one Smt. Jalajakshamma who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. She further contended before the 2nd respondent that since the 3rd respondent had filed an application on 29th august, 1990 seeking allotment of the premises in her favour, the said application is not maintainable as it was filed beyond the time fixed i. e. , 27th august, 1990. It is her further case that the 3rd respondent does not require the premises in question and that the 3rd respondent having already taken two other premises on lease from the petitioner and had sublet the same for higher rent. However, the 3rd respondent in the course of the proceedings before the 2nd respondent asserted that the premises in question is required by her for the purpose of opening a ward office as she was a corporator at that time.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent by his order-annexure-a dated 23-11-1990 while rejecting the claim made by the petitioner for release of the premises in her favour allotted the same in favour of the 3rd respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the said order was rejected by the 1st respondent by means of his order-annexure-a dated 27th july, 1993. Aggrieved by the said order this writ petition has been presented. learned counsel for the petitioner has made four submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to allot the premises in question to the 3rd respondent as the 3rd respondent had admittedly made the application seeking allotment of the premises in question in her favour only on 29th august, 1990, i. e. , after the last date fixed for the filing of the application. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice that under similar circumstances an application filed by one Sri ahmed inaithulla, beyond the last date fixed for filing the application was rejected by the 2nd respondent and whereas the application of the 3rd respondent was considered. Therefore, he submitted that the 2nd respondent has taken an inconsistent stand in the matter and therefore the impugned orders are totally illegal. Secondly, he submitted that the petitioner has made a request for release of the premises in question on the ground that the same is required by her for her bona fide use and occupation. However, the 2nd respondent has allotted the same in favour of the 3rd respondent without considering the claim of the petitioner. He further submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 have proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner requested release of the premises in question in favour of her daughter-in-law, Smt. Jalajakshamma and not in her favour and this approach of respondents 1 and 2 is totally erroneous in law. He points out that the power conferred on respondents 1 and 2 being quasi-judicial in nature and since the orders passed by them seriously interferes with the property rights of the petitioner, a duty is on them to consider the evidence on record and pass a considered order. thirdly, he submitted that the records of the proceedings would clearly show that the impugned orders came to be passed totally on account of extraneous and irrelevant consideration and taking into account that the 3rd respondent was a corporator at that time. In this connection, he brought to my notice the report made by the revenue inspector wherein he has reported that he had received the application filed by the 3rd respondent though filed beyond the time fixed, on account of the oral instructions given by the 2nd respondent on that behalf. Elaborating this submission, the learned counsel points out this clearly shows that the 2nd respondent was biased in favour of the 3rd respondent and therefore, the impugned order passed by him requires to be quashed solely on this ground. finally, he submitted that the rate of rent notified by the 2nd respondent was Rs. 600/- per month. However, the 2nd respondent while allotting the premises to the 3rd respondent fixed the rate of rent at Rs. 500/- per month solely with a view to favour the 3rd respondent and the same has been done even without hearing the petitioner with regard to the rate of rent to be fixed.