- (1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.5.1979 of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the DC) in HRC Appeal No. 254 of 1978-79 (Ext. C) affirming the order dated 3.11.1978 of the House Rent Controller, City Area, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Controller) in case No. HRC Misc. No. 323 of 1978 (Ext. B).
(2.) Among others respondent No. 3 is the owner of a non-residential premises of a shop bearing No. B-46 situated at PBR Lane, Police Road Cross, Bangalore-2 (hereinafter referred to as the Shop). In about 1946 or so, respondent No. 3 had leased the shop to one Guru or Swamy on a monthly rent of Rs. 30, who died in about 1972. Some time after the death of the said tenant, the petitioner occupied the shop without the knowledge and consent of respondent No. 3 and an order of allotment by the Controller. Evidently, with the object of creating evidence in his favour, the petitioner appears to have sent rents to respondent No. 3 by money order which was refused by him, on the ground that he was not his tenant. Undaunted by the said refusal of respondent No. 3 the petitioner instituted a proceeding under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred for as the Act) in the Court of the principal first munsiff, Bangalore in HRC No. 33 of 1973 seeking the assistance of the said Court for deposit of rents and payment thereto to respondent No. 2 under that provision. Not unnaturally respondent No. 3 opposed the said application made by the petitioner and contended that he was not his tenant. Accepting the case of respondent No. 3, the learned principal first Munsiff by his order dated 14.10.1974 rejected the application made by the petitioner in these terms :" "ORDER Petitioner : Sri C.S.N. Respondent : Sri S.L.R. Evidence Pleadings seen - Respondent does not recognise the applicant as his tenant. He is not ready to accept rent. In the proceedings under Section 19 the parties cannot get a finding as to whether petitioner is a tenant or not. Therefore, nothing more can be done in this case. Proceedings closed. No costs. Sd/- G.S. Visweswara, Pril, First Munsiff, Bangalore". Simultaneously the petitioner had also instituted a suit in O.S. No. 1066 of 1973 in the Court of the III additional first Munsiff, Bangalore against respondent No. 3 and the Corporation of the City of Bangalore for a permanent injunction restraining them from demolishing the shop and disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said shop, which was resisted by both the defendants. In that suit, respondent No. 3 reiterated his case pleaded in H.R.C. No. 33 of 1973 and the Corporation denied that any attempt had been made by it to demolish the shop. On a consideration of the evidence placed by the parties, the learned third additional first Munsiff by his judgment and decree dated 24.7.1975 found that the petitioner was not in lawful possession of the shop and that the Corporation had made no attempt to demolish the shop and the petitioner was not, therefore, entitled for injunction sought by him. Both theses proceedings, in which the petitioner has been found to be in unlawful possession, have become final.
(3.) Another desperate attempt made by the Petitioner under the Act has landed him in this Court. On 11.12.1976, the petitioner made an application before the Controller under Part V-A of the Act for regularisation of his occupation of the shop. As the petitioner had sought for regularisation of non-residential premises, the Controller prima facie, taking the view that regularisation of the same was not permissible under Chapter V-A of the Act, issued a notice on 12.5.1978 to the petitioner and respondent No. 3 to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them under Section 4(3) and 10-A of the Act. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed a statement praying for regularisation, while respondent No. 3 opposed the said request. Inn proof of his assertion, respondent No. 3 produced certified copies of the orders passed in H.R.C. No. 33 of 1973 and O.S. No. 1066 of 1973. On a consideration of the contentions urged by the parties, the Controller by his order dated 3.11.1978 found that the petitioner who was in occupation of a non-residential premises un-authorisedly was not entitled for the protection under Part V-A of the Act and directed him to vacate and had over vacant possession of the shop to the Controller on or before 30.11.1978 failing which to evict him by using force, if necessary. Against the said order of the Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal in H.R.C. Appeal No. 254/78-79 before the D.C. who by his order dated 5.5.1979 had dismissed the same and has affirmed the order of the Controller, the validity of which is challenged by him in this writ petition.;