G A BAQUARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is common to both the writ petitions. In this order the parties, will be referred to as per their ranking in writ petition No. 5514 of 1977. The owner of the premises in question bearing No. 12 Richmond Road, Bangalore, is the 4th respondent in writ petition No. 5514 of 1977 and he is also the 3rd respondent in writ petition No 5909 of 1977. In writ petition No. 5514 of 1977, the petitioner has clallenged the validity of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent (The Special Deputy Commissioner), and the 3rd respondent (The House Rent Controller). The 3rd respondent by the order dt. 13-1-1977 in H.R.C. Misc. 218/76-77, directed the petitioner to vacate the premises in cuestion. By the said order, the 3rd respondent has also further directed prosecution of the owner of the premises in question for violation of section 4 (1) and (2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 2rd respondent in H.R.C.A. No. 288 of 1977, the aforesaid order of the 3rd- respondent has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed granting time till 13-5-1977 for vacating the premises in question on the ground that the petitioner has consented for passing of the said order. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred a Review Petition before the 2nd respondent and that review petition also was dismissed by the order dated 23-6-1977. Thus, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid three orders in writ petition No. 5514 of 1977.

(2.) During the pendency of the proceeding in the aforesaid HRC. Misc. 218 of 76-77. the Act came to be amended by Act No. 66 of 1977. In pursuance of the said amendment, the petitioner filed a declaration before the 3rd respondent under section 31-B of the Act for regularisation of his occupation as per section 33-C of the Act. The 3rd respondent has rejected the said application by the order dt 23-6-1977. It is this order that has been challenged in writ petition No. 5909 of 1977.

(3.) The case of the petitioner in both these writ petitions, is that the entire premises in question bearing No. 12 Richmond Road, Bangalore, was under the possession of the Posts and Telegraphs Department and the said Department vacated the premises and thereafter the 4th respondent applied to the 3rd respondent for releasing the premises for his personal use and occupation. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent released the premises in favour of the 4th respondent for his own use and occupation. Thereafter, as per the case of the petitioner the 4th respondent got half portion of the premises bearing No. 12, Richmond Road, converted into a non-residential building by obtaining an order by the 3rd respondent under section 11 of the Act. The further case of the petitioner is that he and the 4th respondent started a business in partnership under the name and style "Keep-fit Club" in the portion of the aforesaid premises, which was permitted by the 3rd respondent to be used as a non-residential building and this partnership business was commenced on 26-10-1975. According to the case of the petitioner, there was no deed of partnership (and it was only by way of an oral agreement) the partnership business was commenced and as per the oral agreement the petitioner was to give Rs. 1000 per month to the owner of the premises in question (4th respondent) being the profit of the business and that this partnership business according to the case of the petitioner went on till November 1976 and in the month of November 1976, the partnership business came to end. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the partnership business came to an end, he continued the business of 'Keep Fit Club' in the premises in question and became the tenant of the said premises. His further case is that after the partnership business between the 4th respondent and himself came to an end, the relationship between them was not cordial, therefore, the 4th respondent by writing anonymous letter to the Rent Controller, got the proceedings initiated under Sec. 10-A of the Act, for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question, on the ground that the occupation of the petitioner of the premises in question, was in contravention of section 4 of the Act It is the further case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent, in pursunce of the said anonymous letter, issued notices to the petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent and thereafter has passed the order in question holding that there has been an unauthorised letting and further holding that the occupation of the premises by the petitioner was in contravention of section 4(2) of the Act.