S SUBRAMANYASWAMY Vs. DY COMMR BANGALORE
LAWS(KAR)-1981-2-31
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on February 26,1981

S.SUBRAMANYASWAMY Appellant
VERSUS
DY.COMMR.BANGALORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal is from the order of Sabhahit, J., dismissing WP. No. 10069 of 1980. The petitioner therein has presen" ted this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be refer red to according to their respective posi" tions in the writ petition.
(2.) The material facts are these : Premises bearing No. 253/22 (first floor, left portion), First Block, 4th Cross, Jayana- gar Bangalore-11 (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises') formed the subject matter of proceedings under the provisions of Part II of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The Rent and,Accommodation Controller, Civil Area, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Controller'), having information that the premises had become vacant on 5-4-1980, got served on 18-4-1980 a notice on its owner (respon- dent-2) calling upon her to report as required under S. 4 (1) of the Act, the vacancy of the premises on or before 20-4-1980. Thereafter, on 26-4-1980 the petitioner who claimed to have become the usufructuary mortgagee of the said premises, filed before the Controller a report intimating that the premises became vacant on 23-4-1980 and praying that the premises should be given to him for his own use and occupation.
(3.) After considering the claim of the petitioner and the applications of others for allotment of the premises, the Controller made an order on 27-5-1980 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and allotting the premises to respondent-4. The Controller took the view that the claim of the petitioner was not just and reasonable and that respondent-4 had to be given the highest priority among the applicants for the purpose of allotment. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner who dismissed it affirming the order of the Controller and observed, inter alia, that the petitioner had no valid claim for occupation of the premises, but would only be entitled to receive rent thereof.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.