U LINGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the son of the original landlord against whom the contesting respondent 3 had filed form 7 claiming occupancy right to challenge the Order dated 16-10-1981 granting occupancy right, copy whereof is at Annexure-A to writ petition.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Pushpalatha appearing for Sri a. Keshava bhat. Sri sanath kumar shetty, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent 3. The respondent 1-state and the respondent 2-land tribunal, mangalore are served with notices and they remained absent before court. Sri s. s. guttal, the learned High Court government pleader is therefore directed to take notice for the said two respondents.

(3.) THE short point in the writ petition is whether the impugned Order passed by the respondent 2-land tribunal can sustain for want of notice or not. In the instant case, the learned government pleader had secured the records from the land tribunal for my perusal. On perusal of the records of the land tribunal it is found that the notice at the first instance was attempted to be served in person to the original landlord on 21-6-1980 and as he was not available, the same could not be served. It is thereafter on the second occasion, the land tribunal had issued the notice yet again addressed to the original landlord on 5-9-1980, 10-10-1980 and again on 14-8-1981, but the notices were not served with for one reason or other. Therefore, when the land tribunal finally issued the notice to the landlord on 24-9-1981, on that occasion too, the notice could not be served on the original landlord and for that reason the notice was tendered to one of the adult members of the family of the landlord but the same was refused by the adult member of the family too. On such a refusal by the adult member of the tenant, the notice in question was affixed on the door of the original landlord.