VISHALAKSHI N Vs. SPL DEPUTY COMMR BLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the owner of a non-residential premises bearing No.1/2, Church Street, Bangalore. Under Sec.4 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, the fitfst petitioner gave intimation of the vacancy of the said premises. This is a non-residential premises, the monjthly rent of which exceeds Rs.500, the rent being Rs.2,000 per month. When the matter came up before the Rent Controller the first petitioner gave consent for the allotment of the premisesl to the second petitioner. By an order dated 8-9-77, the Rent Controller allotted 'the premises in favour of second petitioner relying on the order of priority given under Rule 4(1) (A) (10) of the Rent Control Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') . According to the said Rulds where the monthly rent of a non-residential building exceeds Rs.500 priority for allotment is given to a person who has obtained the consent of the landlord fr the lease of the building in his favour. As the second petitioner had secured the consent of the first petitioner, the Rent Controller allotted the said premises to the second petitioner. The objection raised on the ground that the second petitioner is no other than the brother of the first petitioner was over-ruled stating that there was no bar for the first petitioner for leasing the said premises to her own brother.

(2.) The third respondent who was one of the applicants for allotment, preferred an appeal before the Spl Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. By order dated 7-1-1978. the Deputy Commr allowed the appeal and directed the allotment of the premises in favour of third respondent. Aggrieved by Jthe said order, the petitioners have presented this writ petition.

(3.) Sri Mohandas N.Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Deputy Commr erred in rejecting the claim of the second petitioner on the ground that the consent was not given at the time of reporting the vacancy. He invited my attention to para 9 of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, in which he has stated as follows : " I find thai the order of the Controller is not sustainable. The landlady while filing the vacancy report never gave any consent for the allotment of the notified premises."