ANANTHARAMAKRISHNA IYER Vs. RENT CONTROLLER TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by one R. Anantharama Krishna iyer who is the owner of a building and site in the city of Trivandrum for a writ of certiorari calling up the records of Respondents 1 and 2 who are the rent Controller (Deputy Collector) Trivandrum and the Appellate Authority (Collector) Trivandrum, in BRC 8/1951 before Respondent 1 and BRC Appeal petition before Respondent 2 and to quash Respondent 1's order dated 30th august 1951 allotting the petitioner's building to the Respondent 3 and his subsequent order of 14th February 1952 confirming the allotment as also respondent 2's order dated 31st March 1952 dismissing the appeal and to issue further and appropriate directions to Respondents 1 and 3 in the matter of vacating the building and handing over the same to the petitioner for purposes of personal occupation with all mesne profits accrued till then.

(2.) RESPONDENT 3 is described as the Blackstone engineering Works, Thampanoor, Trivandrum, which is admitted to be a concern owned by one Raghavan Pillai exclusively.

(3.) ON 28th August 1951 Bhaskar deposited the keys of the building before respondent 1 who informed the landlord about that fact. ON 30th August 1951 Respondent 1 intimated to the petitioner that the building had been allotted to Respondent 3. ON 1st September 1951 Respondent 3 approached the petitioner for fixing the rent of the premises. Along with the letter which was sent in that behalf, Respondent 3 sent a money order for Rs. 200 stating that to be the rent for two months at the rate which the previous tenant Bhaskar was paying. ON 4th September 1951 the petitioner presented a petition before Respondent 1 challenging the tenancy of Respondent 3 that was imposed upon him and stating further that the building was required for his own occupation. Not having received any reply to this application, on 6th December 1951 he filed a reminder which had the effect of eliciting the order dated 14th February 1952 rejecting the petitioner's application and confirming the allotment in favour of Respondent 3. No enquiry was held by Respondent 1 into the petition presented by the petitioner. The petition was not posted for hearing nor was the petitioner heard upon it. A certified copy of the order produced in Court by the petitioner is marked Ext. B. The ground on which the order is based is that Respondent 3 is doing items of manufacture which are serviceable to the public and the re-treading of the tyres for the State Transport is being done by Respondent 3. The order proceeds to say that on an enquiry instituted by respondent 1 through certain officers, it was known that the building was not required for the personal occupation of the petitioner. It also says that the building would be too big for the petitioner's occupation as the number of members in his family is not large and that the petitioner has, besides this building, many others for his occupation. The petitioner says he came to know about this order only on 7th March 1952 and he sought redress before Respondent 2 by an appeal made on 24th March 1952. The appeal was rejected as belated.