RAMAKRISHNA AITHAL Vs. BHAVANI KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are referred to a Division Bench by Malimath, J., since they involved the question touching upon the validity of S. 21-A of the Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') which was incorporated in the Act by Amendment Act 66 of 1976 (in short, 'the Amendment Act',).

(2.) By our order dated 8.11-1979 in W.P, No. 6914 of 1977 and connected writ petitions, we have upheld the constitutionality of the Amendment Act. Hence the question as to the validity of S. 21-A in the Act, is no longer res integra. But learned counsel for petitioners have contended that even if S. 21A is held to be valid, the impugned orders of the respective House Rent Controllers, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred as 'the Controllers') are unsustainable because S. 21-A is not attracted to the facts cf these two cases.

(3.) We will first consider the facts in W.P. No. 1921 of 1977. The petitioner is a tenant of the entire house bearing No. 9, Benson Cross Road, Civil Station, Bangalore. The 3rd and the 4th respondents purchased under two separate sale deeds;, two separate portions of this house. The 5th respondent and his wife, the 3rd; respondent, are a;t present residing at No. 61, Millers Road, Bangalore. This house was allotted to the 5th respondent by the Controller under S. 5 of the Act. Admittedly, the 5th respondent is not the owner of the house in the occupation of the petitioner. Taking advantage of S. 21A of the Act, the 3rd and the 4th respondents filed an application before the House Rent Controller under clause (b) of sub- section (1) of S. 21A of the Act, for eviction, of the petitioner from the house occupied by him as tenant. Their case was that the 5th respondent (who was impleaded as the 3rd petitioner before the House Rent Controller by the petitioners herein) being an allottee of premises No. 61, Millers Road, Bengalore, he and his wife (the 3rd respondent) were required to vacate that premises under S. 21-A (1) (a) of the Act as his wife, the 3rd respondent, was the owner of a portion of the house occupied by the petitioner as tenant. They had issued, purporting to be under the proviso to S. 21A (1) (b) of the Act, a notice of not less than four months to the petitioner to vacate the portion of the premises belonging to the 3rd respondent