A N KESARI Vs. HOUSE RENT CONTROLLER BANGALORE CITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sri A.N. Kesari has challenged in this writ petition Exhibit B dated 26-8-1977 the order made by respondent-1 the House Rent Controller, Bangalore City, in No. HRC. V. DL. 66/75 rejecting the declaration of the petitioner made under Section 31C of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for consequential reliefs. THE petitioner is admittedly in occupation of premises bearing No. 37, First Floor, 'Suryalaya', Shankarmutt Road, Shankarapuram, Bangalore-4, '-which premises is owned by Sri C.D. Gopal- krishna, respondent-2, Respondent-1 initiated proceedings in HRC. Misc. 451 of 1975 against the petitioner and respondent 2 alleging that the petitioner has occupied the premises unauthorisedly and in contravention of S. 4 of the Act. After holding enquiry, respondent-1 made an order on 7-6-1976 holding that the petitioner has in his occupation the premises in contravention of sub-sec- (2) of section 4 of the Act, and that, therefore, he is liable to be evicted. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, in HRA 125 of 1976-77 under S. 12 of the Act, which appeal came to be dismissed on 26-8-1976. THE appellate authority while dismissing the appeal granted three months' time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. Before the said period of three months expired, Karnataka Ordinance No. 29 of 1976 was promulgated by the Governor making certain amendments to the Act. By S. 3 of the said Ordinance new part VA has been inserted, which part contains the newly added sections 31A to 31D. Taking advantage of this Ordinance, the petitioner filed a declaration in accordance with S. 31B stating that he is in occupation of the premises in question in contravention of S. 4 of the Act, and that, therefore, he is entitled to regularisation of his unauthorised occupation. THE declaration was presented by the petitioner on 17-11-1976. By Act 66 of 1976 the aforesaid Karnataka Ordinance 29 of 1976 and another Ordinance, were replaced and substantially the same provisions were re-enacted with retrospective effect from 13-10-1976. Respondent-1 after hearing both the parties made the impugned order on 26-8-1977 rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioner seeking regularisation of his unauthorised occupation of the premises. Respondent-1 further directed the petitioner to vacate the premises finally by 10-9-1977 failing which he would evict the petitioner forcibly in accordance with the provisions of S. 10A (b) of the Act. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate relief. Respondent-1 has taken the view that as no procedings was pending before any court or authority under the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Ordinance 29 of 1976 and Act 66 of 1976, which replaced that Ordinance. Section 8 of Act 66 of 1976 corresponds to section 4 of the said Ordinance and reads as follows :