NAGAMMAL V K Vs. SPL DY CMMR BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of a residential premises bearing No, 48 situated at 6th Cross Road, Swimming Pool Extension, Malleswaram, Bangalore-3, and the same had been leased, on a rent of Rs. 150 per month. On the tenant vacating the premises, the petitioner on 19-9-1977 intimated the vacancy of the premises to the House Rent and Accommodation Controller. City Area, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Controller') under the provisions of the Karnaaka, Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sought his permission for self-occupation. As required by Rule 3 of the Karnataka Rent Control Rules, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Rules'), the Controller notified the vacancy in response to which respondent NO. 3 and 12 others filed their applications for allotment of the premises in their fayour. On 10th October, 1977, the Controller considered the claim of the petitioner and other applicants and by his order of the same date rejected the claim of the petitioner and, allotted the premises, to respondent No. 3 (Ext. A). Against the said order of the Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Deputy Commissioner') with an appication for stay of the operation of the order under appeal- On 15-10-1977 the Deputy Commissioner stayed the operation of the order under appeal (Ext. B) for which reason respondent No. 3 did not occupy the premises in pursuance of the allotment order made in his favour. On 6-1-1978, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. On 9-1-1978, respondent No. 3 appraised the Controller the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner and therefore requested him for delivery of the premises to enable him to occupy the same. On that request, the Controller issued an order to respondent No. 4 authorising him to deliver the premises to respondent No. 3 by breaking open the locks and taking the police assistance if necessary (Ext. D) . In pursuance of that order, resh pondent No. 4 is stated to have broken open the locks of the premises and delivered the same to respondent No. 3 on 11-1-1978 at 9-30 A.M. In this writ petition presented on 12-1-1978, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 10-10-1977 and 9-1-1978 of the Controller (Exts. 'A' and 'D') and the order dated 6-1-1978 of the Deputy Commissioner (Ext. 'C').

(2.) In her writ petition, the petitioner has in detail set out her case for self occupation of the premises. She has averred that she and her other two sisters are widows and that she requires the; premises for her own use and the use of her sisters and the children of her last sister who are studying in Schools and Colleges in Bangalore City, She has also asserted that the Controller and his Revenue Inspector have delivered the premises to respondent No. 3 in utter defiance of the order dated 11-1-1978 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Ext. F) taking advantage of her helpless position. The Deputy Commissioner, the Controller and the Revenue Inspector despite service of notice, have remained absent and have not filed any return denying any of the allegations made by the petitioner. Even respondent No. 3 who is represented by a counsel has also not filed any return defying any of the allegations made by the petitioner. At my request, Shri G. R. Nataraj, learned High Court Government Pleader, has made available the records of the office of the Controller.

(3.) Shri N. S. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the forefront contended that the orders dated 6-1-1978 and 10-10-1977 of the Deputy Commissioner and the Controller rejecting the clain of the petitioner for self-occupation is based on no evidence and is based on surmises and conjectures and is contrary to the evidence on record. Shri Srinivasan therefore maintained that the orders suffer from manifest illegalities apparent on the face of the record and has resulted in substantial failure of justice and therefore they are liable to be quashed. Shri G. Basavaraj learned counsel for respondent No. 3. refuted the contention of Shri Srinivasan and urged that the petitiqner in justification of her plea had, not placed any evidence before the authorities and the order of the Controller allotting the premises affirmed in appeal, does not call for my interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution.