SURENDER Vs. HOUSE RENT CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order of the special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, marked at Ext.'F-4' dt.4-11-1976 and for a direction to respondents 1, 5 and 6 to evict respondent-2 from the premises after declaring that the premises are vacant and to proceed in accordance with law lor allotment of the premises.

(2.) The facts in brief are that one C.N.Gopal, owned a cinema theatre known as 'Shivananda Theatre'. It was leased to the petitioner's uncle one Rangaiah on 29-12-41 for a period of five years under Ext.'A' with option and liberty to renew or extend the period of lease for a period of another five years subject to such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon. Before the expiry of the period of lease for five years C.N.Gopal, entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent as per Ext.'C' dt.2-9-46 for a period of ten years in the first instance with option of the tenant to continue for a further period of five years on the same terms with a similar second option to continue for another period of five years. In Ext.'C', it was stipulated that the rent shall be payable by the 2nd respondent with/effect from the date on which the possession of the theatre is made over to the tenant by the landlord who shall if necessary take such steps as may be required to obtain and deliver possession to the tenant as soon as possible. C.N.Gopal filed a suit for eviction against Rangaiah the uncle of the petitioner in OS. 112 of 1946 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore and obtained a decree dt.31-3-49 against Rangaiah, who filed RA.217148-49 before the High Court of Mysore (Karnataka) on 14-11-50. C.N.Gopal, and Rangaiah, entered into an agreement for a fresh lease for ten years. In pursuance of the second lease agreement entered into between Gopal and Rangaiah with two five year option. Rangiah refused to vacate the premises. The 2nd respondent filed a suit for eviction on the basis of Ext.'C' in OS. 52/50-51 in the Dist Court at Bangalore. The suit was dismissed on 30-7-53. -The 2nd respondent filed RA.263 of 1954 before this Court. The appeal was dismissed with some modifications. The 2nd respondent filed CA.1263 of 1967 before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Rangaiah died. Hence the petitioner was impleaded as his legal representative before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted a decree in terms of the agreement of lease Ext.'C'. The petitioner as legal representative filed a review petition before the Supreme Court which came to be dismissed. In the meantime the premises was purchased by the 4th respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner on 16-10-74 under a sale deed. In execution of the decree of the Supreme Court, the petitioner was evicted and the 2nd respondent was put in possession on 12-11-75. The 2nd respondent entered into an agreement on 12-11-75 and formed a partnership agreement called 'Brindavan Enterprises' and took one Dayananda Pai as partner and has been carrying on the business of Cinematography Exhibition by name 'Brindavan Enterprises'.

(3.) Further, by a notice dt.2-6-76 under Sec.4(3) Karnataka House Rent Control Act, 1961, (to be called the Act) the House Rent Controller, Bangalore City, called upon the 4th respondent landlord to explain as to why she should not be prosecuted under Sec.4(3) of the Act for contravention of the provisions of Section 4(1) and (2) of the Act. Further, by another notice dated 2-6-76 under Section 10A(1) of the Act, the Rent Controller, called upon the 3rd respondent to explain as to why he should not be evicted from the above premises.