- (1.)In this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16-1-1979 passed by the House Rent and Accommodation controller, Bangalore City, Bangalore, rejecting his application filed under S. 10 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') and also for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to put the petitioner in possession of the premises in question bearing No. 3, Pampa Mahakavi Road, Banglore-18, in pursuance of the order of allotment, produced as Ext-A.
(2.)The premises in question belongs to the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent has been inducted by the 2nd respondent subsequent to the order of allotment made in, favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is running an educational institution known as London School of Speech. In pursuance of the notification of the first respondent notifying the premises in question for allotment, the petitioner made an application for allotment of the prermises in question for housing the said school. Accordingly the Rent Controller allotted the premises by the order dated 1-1-1979 in favour of the petitioner for non-residential purpose i.e., for the occupation of London Scnool of Speech on a monthly rent of Rs. 367. It was further directed in the order of allotment that the 2nd respondent should deliver possession of the premises in question to the allottee OP or before 6-1-1979 and to report compliance as required by the Act. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent was served with the order dated 3-1-1979 and the petitioner accompanied the process server and approached the 2nd respondent on 3-1-1979. But what is denied by the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner simply accompanied the process server and he did not ask for delivery of possession and he has upproached the Rent Controller on the 16th January 1979 after the expiry of eight days Therefore, it was contended on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the Rent Controller was justified in rejecting the application. The case of the petitioner is that he accompanied the process server on 3-1-1979 and approached the Secretary of the 2nd respondent for the purpose of taking delivery of possession of the premises in question and the Secretary pleaded his inability to deliver possession of the premises without the instructions in the matter and further directed the petitioner to approach the President of the 2nd respondent-Society. Accordingly, the futher case of the petitioner is that, he approached the President of the 2nd respondent-society on 4-1-1979 at 6 p.m., who told him that even prior to the order of allotment, the Board of Directors had resolved to let out the premises to the 3rd respondent. Curiously enough, the Rent Controller has rejected the application without enquiring into the same. It was also further contended on behalf of the petitioner that when an application was made under S. 10 of the Act, it was the duly of the Rent Controller to enquire into the matter and to see that the allottee is put in possession of the premises. Sec. 10(1) of the Act, makes it incunbent upon the landlord to put the allottee into possession of the premises as soon as he is served with the order of allotment. Sub-sec. (2) S. 10 of the Act, provides that if the landlord fails 10 deliver possession under sub-sec. (1), the Controller or any officer authorised by him may take possession of the building breaking open locks, if any, using such force with such police assistance as may be required for evicting any person in occupation or control of such building who refuses to deliver and for removing any obstruction and resistance in the taking over of such possession. Thus, sub-sec. (2) of S. 10 of the Act, makes it obligatory upon the Rent Comroller to take possession of the premises of which the landlord has failed to deliver possession to the allottee. The statute has cast a duty upon the Rent Controller to see that the order of allotment is obeyed by the landlord. This duty has to be discharged by the Rent Controller vigilantly and with all earnestness and he is required to make judicious approach to the case, failing which, the very object of the Act will greatly be affected inasmuch as an unscrupulous landlord will always try to defeat or to make infructuous the order of allotment.
(3.)In the instant case, as already pointed cut, the Rent Controller has rejected the application without enquiring into the matter only on the ground that the petitioner has approached the Rent Controller after the lapse of more than 10 days. Sec. 10 of the Act, does not prescribe any period within which the allottee has to approach the Rent Controller for seeking delivery of possession of the premises. That being so, the Rent Controller acted arbitarily in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that he has approached him after the expiry of ten days. The case of the petitioner as made out in the application is that he had approached the landlord on the 3rd January- 1979 itself for taking possession of the premises. As such, be approached the laadlurd well within one week from the date of the order or allotmert which was passed on 1-1.79. That being so, the Rent Controller was not at all justified in rejecting the application without enquiring into the matter As already pointed out, before this Court the second respondent has not denied that the petitioner approached the second respondent on 3-1-1979 along with the process server; but what is contended is that the petinoner accompained the process server or 3-1.1979 only to see that the order of allotment is served upon the 2nd respondent (see para-4 of the counter affidavit dated 1-3-1979 filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent). It is very difficult to appreciate such a stand. An allottee will normally be eager to secure possession of the allotted premises. At any rate, the Rent Controller would not have rejected the application of the petitioner at the thre shold, on the ground that it was made after 10 days of the passing of the order of allotment. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the Rent Controller on, 16-1-1979 rejecting the application of the petitioner cannot be sustained.