M A SHARADA BAI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions referred to the Full Bench are: Whether under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, the only restriction imposed on a landlord is that he shall not let, occupy or permit to be occupied building referred to in sub-section (1) for a period of 15 days from the date on which intimation of vacancy is received by the Controller or within a period of one week after the termination of the proceedings under Section 8, if any, whichever is later, and whether the said restriction will stand removed on the Controller granting permission to the landlord? OR Whether the restriction above referred to is an absolute restriction and whether the permission of the Controller is an additional requirement to be complied with by the landlord even after the termination of the periods specified in the said sub-section (2)?

(2.) If the answer is in the affirmative to the first alternative to the first alternative in the above question, then is sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3 of the Rules ultra vires of the Act, in so far as it (the sub-rule) leaves no discretion but requires the Controller to-( i) send immediately after the receipt of the intimation of vacancy, a copy of the intimation of vacancy and report the date to which the case stands posted, to the State Government or the Officer authorised under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 4; and (ii) notify on the notice board of his office the particulars of the building that has fallen vacant and the date on which the case stands posted. OR Is that sub-rule to be construed as being applicable only when no permission has been given under sub-section (2) of Section 4, by the Controller to the landlord?

(3.) Whether the Controller can permit a landlord to occupy his building which has become vacant, before considering any application for allotment of that building, that may be made under Rule 6 of the Rules and received by the Controller within the date of hearing specified by the Controller under Rule 3(ii) (for considering the causes, if any, shown by the landlord or other person)? 2. In order to appreciate the questions referred to the Full Bench, it may be useful to briefly state the facts of the case and the contentions urged by the parities. The petitioner who is a landlord of a residential building in Bangalore City reported its vacancy to the Controller appointed under the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. In the letter of intimation of the vacancy submitted in Form No. 1 as prescribed under the Mysore Rent Control Rules, 1961, hereinafter called the 'Rules' the petitioner stated that the building was required for her bona fide occupation and that it is not proposed to be relet and therefore permission may be granted to her to occupy the same. The Controller (Respondent No. 3) on receipt of the said vacancy intimation examined the petitioner and made an order rejecting her request and then notified the building for allotment. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District (Respondent No. 2) who after hearing the petitioner's advocate made an order on the 10th September 1965, dismissing the appeal, holding that the procedure followed by the Controller was not regular, that the petitioner's request for permission to occupy the building ought to have been considered after the Controller initiated proceedings under Section 8 and therefore, the appeal was premature. The material portion of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (R. 2) reads thus: "I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and perused the records. The procedure that the House Rent Controller has followed in this case appears to be not clear. There was no reason as to why he made an enquiry into the request made by the appellant even before he gave a date for hearing the appellant and other applicants. The appellant has herself expressed her desire to occupy the premises. She has to wait for a period of 15 days from the date of intimation of vacancy before she could occupy the premises herself. During this period the learned House Rent Controller has to notify the vacancy and if there are applications, enquire into the matter and if the landlady herself desires to occupy the premises and if he is satisfied of her bona fides he could permit her to occupy the premises. But the learned counsel for the appellant says that the House Rent Controller need not have notified the vacancy. The request made is not in accordance with the procedure laid down in rule 3 of the House Rent Control Rules, which lays down that immediately after the receipt of intimation of vacancy of any building the Controller shall notify the notice board of the office the particulars of the building given in items 1, 2 and 9 of Form 1. It goes without saying that only on the date of hearing the Controller has to consider the needs of the landlady-appellant and if her needs are genuine as made out in her statement, from independent enquiries and also from the statement of other applicants he should decide the issue and permit the appellant to occupy the premises herself. If he finds that there are no bona fides he should allot it to other applicants. In view of the above provision, in the rules, the appeal cannot be allowed at this stage. If the appellant is aggrieved by the final orders passed by the learned House Rent Controller, she might come up in appeal again to this Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed." 3. Aggrieved by the order of Respondent No. 2, the petitioner approached this Court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in which she has urged that under the scheme of the Act, the controller can take proceedings under Section 8 only after deciding whether or not he should grant permission to the landlord to occupy the building; and that Rule 3(ii) is repugnant to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act and therefore ultra vires. On the said contention, the Division Bench before whom the matter came up for hearing, referred the above questions for decision of the Full Bench.