SATHYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is by the landlady and appellant before respondent 2-deputy commissioner, hassan district, hassan for quashing the orders of respondent 3-assistant commissioner and house rent accommodation controller, hassan dated 24-10-1991 in hrc/46/89-90 and of respondent 2-deputy commissioner dated 21-5-1996 in hra/20/91-92, Annexure-B is the order of respondent 3 and that is confirmed in appeal by respondent 2- deputy commissioner, Annexure-C is the order of respondent 2.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel Sri Sekhar Shetty for the petitioner, Sri Seshachala for respondent 4 and the high court government pleader for respondents 1 to 3. Records of the original proceedings and also of the appeal were made available for perusal by the government pleader.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the presentation of this writ petition may be stated thus: undisputably, petitioner is the owner of certain shop premises situated at salagame road in hassan town. One eswarappa who was in occupation of one of the shop premises i. e. , now in dispute, it would appear on 27-7-1989 made an application before respondent 3 stating that he had been evicted unauthorisedly, by misrepresentation and fraud. On receiving the said complaint, respondent 3 called for the report from the revenue inspector. On 24-8-1989 revenue inspector submitted his report stating that the premises vacated by eshwarappa is retained by the landlady for her personal use and occupation. It is stated that there was a notice thereafter to the landlady and on 20-9-1989 respondent 3 issued notification inviting applications from the intending persons. In response to the said notification three persons including respondent 4 viz. , one h. r. prakash, eshwarappa and respondent 4 submitted their applications in the prescribed form. Thereafter, respondent 3 held an enquiry and by order at Annexure-B allotted the premises in question in favour of respondent 4 on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- and further directed the landlady to deliver vacant possession of the premises within 15 days from the date of service of the order. Aggrieved by the said order and direction, landlady, writ petitioner herein moved respondent 2 under Section 12 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' ). Deputy commissioner, by the impugned order dated 21-5-1996 dismissed the appeal thereby confirmed the allotment in favour of respondent 4. These two orders are under challenge in this petition.