NARAYANA Vs. S P L DY COMMR BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226(1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution, the petitioner who is the owner of the premises bearing No.159/4, III Floor, situated at Basavanna Temple Street, Avenue Road Cross, Bangalore-2, has challenged the correctness of the, order passed by the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, City Area, Bangalore, in Case No, HRC. 160/ACC B/79, dated 4.4.1979 and also the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in Case No. H.R.C.A. 5 of 1979-80, dated 2-7-1979.

(2.) After the premises in question became vacant, the vacancy was reported to the Rent Controller by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Rent Controller notified the vacancy. The petitioner landlord also sought for release of the premises in his favour on the ground that he wanted to sell away the premises and as such in order to get proper value, it was necessary to offer vacant possession of the premises to the prospective purchaser. He based his contention on S.8(1) (b) read with S. 21 (1) (e) of the, Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This contention did not find favour with the Rent Controller and samilarly with the appellate authority. Accordingly, the premises in question came to be allotted to the 3rd respondent. The very same contention was advanced before me by Sri P.Krishnappa the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, stating that under S. 8(1) (b) of the Act, it was open for the Rent Controller to pass an order directing the landlord not to dispose of or to make any structural alteration in the building without the permission of the Rent Controller within such time or until expiry of such period not exceeding one month as specified in the order.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the petitioner required route. That being so, the Regional Transport Authority acted without jurisdiction in granting, permits to respondents 2 to 4 under S.62 of the Act. The power under S. 62 of the Act can be exercised in respect of the notified area or notified route subject to the provisions contained under S. 68FF of the Act. 10. Consequently, the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority, had no jurisdiction to grant the temporary permits in question to respondents 2 to 4 as the routes covered by the temporary permits overlap the notified routes of Kanakapura Pocket Scheme in respect of which the petitioner-State Transport Undertaking has obtained the permits and has been running the services. Now, the question is whether the temporary permits granted in favour of respondents 2 to 4 should be quashed. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the legal position as indicated above has been made clear and this will protect the interest of the petitioner in future as it is not open for the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority to entertain applications for grant of temporary permits in respect of the notified area or notified routes covered by the Kanakapura Pocket Scheme. As already indicated above, the temporary permit granted to the 3rd respondent expired on 31.7.1979 and the one granted to the 4th respondent is to expire on 15th of this month and that of the 2nd respondent expires on the 15th of next month. In view of the fact that the respondents have been operating for all these days and there is a very short period left for the expiry of the permits and further taking into consideration the interests of the travelling public, I think it is not necessary to quash the permits. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of as stated above.