A C JOSEPH Vs. SPL DY COMMR BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri A. C. Joseph, petitioner before me, who claims to be the owner of a residential premises bearing No. 1311 situated at Hutchinsi Road, Bangalore City, has challenged an order dated 23-5-1978 of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bamgalore District, Bangalore, in H.R.C. Appeal No. 314 of 1977-78 (Ext.B) affirming the order dated 7-2-1978 of the House Rent Controller, Civil Area, Bangalore, in Case No. HRC 23 ACC 78 (Ext. A) allotting the said premises to respondent No 3.

(2.) As the assertion of the petitioner that he is the, owner of the premises is not denied and disputed by the respondents, I propose to examine his claim on that basis.

(3.) On 22-12-1977, a Revenue Inspector atatched to the Office of respondent No. 2 reported that the premises were vacant and action may be taken to notify the vacancjy.On that report, respqndent No. 2 ordered to issue notices to the inmates on or before 29-12-1977. From the records, it is not possible for me to gather as to whom the notices; were issued in pursuance of the order of the Controller. On 10-1-1978 one Smt. Dhanamma who is stated to be the mother-jn-law of the petitioner gave an intimation of the vacancy of the premises. In that intimation, she claimed the premises for her own use and occupation. On 18-1-1978, the, petitioner filed an affidavit before respondent No. 2 claiming that the premises had not fallen vacant and therefore to cancel the Notification of vacancy issued in that behalf. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 had notified the vacancy in response to which respondent No. 3 and 8 others filed their application each praying for allotment of the premises' in his own favour. The application of respondent No. 3 which alone now survives was filed on 18-1-1978. Before the application or along with the application respondent No. 3 did not deposit one month's rent of the building as advance. From the records it is seen respondent No. 3 deposited a sum of Ra. 200 on 6-2-1978' probably that being the amount specified in the notice of vacaney issued by respondent No. 2. On 7-2-197 respondent No. 2 considered the claim of the petititioner for cancellation of the notice of vacancy a,nd the claim of respondent No- 3 and others for allotment. Evidently after hearing the arguments, the Controller, by his order dated 7-2-1978 holding that the premises were vacant, allotted the same to respondent No. 3 ojn the ground that he had a preferential claim over the other applicants which was unsuccessfully challenged, BY the petitioner before respondent No. 1, the validity of which are challenged by him in this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.