M. Saleem Amjad Vs. State of Karnataka and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....right to maintain eviction petition. -- section 43: landlord and tenant relationship - agreement entered into between parties on no rent and no interest basis- landlord not required to pay interest on deposit received from tenants and in turn tenants need not pay any monthly rents to landlord for having occupied premises held, it is a lease agreement and not a mortgage. there existed relationship of tenant and landlord between parties. -- transfer of property act, 1882 [c.a. no. 4/1882]. section 58; lease or mortgage - agreement entered into between parties on no rent and no interest basis- landlord not required to pay interest on deposit received from tenants and in turn tenants need not pay any monthly rents to landlord for having occupied premises held, it is a lease agreement and not a mortgage. there existed relationship of tenant and landlord between parties. .....seven years, he is not qualified to be considered as a karnataka student eligible for admission against a free seat. aggrieved the petitioner filed w.p. no. 20875 of 1996 claiming a mandamus from this court on the ground that he was entitled to be admitted against the karnataka students category on account of his having studied here for a period of 5 years. this court however did not find favour with this submission and held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered only against 15% seats reserved for non karnataka students subject to his eligibility. the court also repelled the challenge to the rule on the ground of the same being arbitrary. the order passed by this court is brief and may be reproduced in extenso.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. The petitioner hails from Andhra Pradesh. He was selected on a scholarship for study in a school at Bellary in Karnataka, where he studied for 5 years and passed his 12th Standard examination from the Central Board of Secondary Education. He applied for admission against a medical seat and appeared in the CET Examination in which he emerged at Rank No. 87 in the over all rank list. He wanted his case to be considered for a free seat as a Karnataka student on the basis that he had studied in Karnataka for a period of 5 years. This the authorities were not prepared to do for according to the rules regulating the admissions to such courses, and as per the amendment brought to the saidrules in the year 1996, unless a student has studied in Karnataka for a period of seven years, he is not qualified to be considered as a Karnataka student eligible for admission against a free seat. Aggrieved the petitioner filed W.P. No. 20875 of 1996 claiming a mandamus from this Court on the ground that he was entitled to be admitted against the Karnataka students category on account of his having studied here for a period of 5 years. This Court however did not find favour with this submission and held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered only against 15% seats reserved for non Karnataka students subject to his eligibility. The Court also repelled the challenge to the rule on the ground of the same being arbitrary. The order passed by this Court is brief and may be reproduced in extenso.