ORDER
1. The petitioner in this writ petition is the owner of the premises bearing No. 1873/13 and 14 situated at Sayyaji Rao Road, Mandi Mo-halla, Mysore. He has called in question the correctness of the order dated 27th July, 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order dated 23rd November, 1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B passed by the second respondent treating the premises belonging to the petitioner as vacant and rejecting the claim of the petitioner for release of the said premises in her favour and allotting the same to the 3rd respondent.
2. The facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this writ petition may be stated as under:
On the report dated 7th August, 1990 submitted by the Revenue Inspector, the 2nd respondent by his notification dated 20th August, 1990 notified the premises in question as vacant and called for applications for allotment of the said premises. In the notification issued, the 2nd respondent fixed 27th August, 1990 as the last date for submission of the application. Pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed her objections and made a request to the 2nd respondent, to release the premises in question in her favour on theground that the said premises is required for the purpose of carrying on business in non-vegetarian restaurant by one Smt. Jalajakshamma who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. She further contended before the 2nd respondent that since the 3rd respondent had filed an application on 29th August, 1990 seeking allotment of the premises in her favour, the said application is not maintainable as it was filed beyond the time fixed i.e., 27th August, 1990. Jt is her further case that the 3rd respondent does not require the premises in question and that the 3rd respondent having already taken two other premises on lease from the petitioner and had sublet the same for higher rent. However, the 3rd respondent in the course of the proceedings before the 2nd respondent asserted that the premises in question is required by her for the purpose of opening a ward office as she was a Corporator at that time.
3. The 2nd respondent by his Order-Annexure-A dated 23-11-1990 while rejecting the claim made by the petitioner for release of the premises in her favour allotted the same in favour of the 3rd respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the said order was rejected by the 1st respondent by means of his Order-Annexure-A dated 27th July, 1993. Aggrieved by the said order this writ petition has been presented. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made four submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to allot the premises in question to the 3rd respondent as the 3rd respondent had admittedly made the application seeking allotment of the premises in question in her favour only on 29th August, 1990, i.e., after the last date fixed for the filing of the application. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice that under similar circumstances an application filed by one Sri Ahmed Inaithulla, beyond the last date fixed for filing the application was rejected by the 2nd respondent and whereas the application of the 3rd respondent was considered. Therefore, he submitted that the 2nd respondent has taken an inconsistent stand in the matter and therefore the impugned orders are totally illegal. Secondly, he submitted that the petitioner has made a request for release of the premises in question on the ground that the same is required by her for her bona fide use and occupation. However, the 2nd respondent has allotted the same in favour of the 3rd respondent without considering the claim of the petitioner. He further submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 have proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner requested release of the premises in question in favour of her daughter-in-law, Smt. Jalajakshamma and not in her favour and this approach of respondents 1 and 2 is totally erroneous in law. He points out that the power conferred on respondents 1 and 2 being quasi-judicial in nature and since the orders passed by them seriously interferes with the property rights of the petitioner, a duty is on them to consider the evidence on record and pass a considered order.
Thirdly, he submitted that the records of the proceedings would clearly show that the impugned orders came to be passed totally on account of extraneous and irrelevant consideration and taking into account that the 3rd respondent was a Corporator at that time. In this connection, he brought to my notice the report made by the RevenueInspector wherein he has reported that he had received the application filed by the 3rd respondent though filed beyond the time fixed, on account of the oral instructions given by the 2nd respondent on that behalf. Elaborating this submission, the learned Counsel points out this clearly shows that the 2nd respondent was biased in favour of the 3rd respondent and therefore, the impugned order passed by him requires to be quashed solely on this ground.
Finally, he submitted that the rate of rent notified by the 2nd respondent was Rs. 600/- per month. However, the 2nd respondent while allotting the premises to the 3rd respondent fixed the rate of rent at Rs. 500/-per month solely with a view to favour the 3rd respondent and the same has been done even without hearing the petitioner with regard to the rate of refit to be fixed.
4. The learned Government Pleader supported the impugned order. However, the Counsel for the 3rd respondent was permitted to retire from the case in view of the memo filed by him on 15th September, 1997. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has not made any other alternative arrangement to engage a Counsel. This petition is of the year 1993.
5. I find considerable force in all the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the last date fixed by the 2nd respondent for filing the application was 27th August, 1990 and the 3rd respondent had filed her application only on 29th August, 1990. It is also not in dispute that the application filed by one Sri Ahmed Inaithulla, after the last date fixed for filing the application was rejected by the 2nd respondent. When such being the case, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent has seriously erred in law in considering the application filed by the 3rd respondent after the last date fixed for filing the application seeking allotment of the premises. It was not permissible for the 2nd respondent to consider the application filed after the last date fixed to file the applications seeking allotment of the premises in question. The proceedings before the 2nd respondent are quasi-judicial in nature. Therefore, he is bound by the procedure prescribed and the last date fixed for filing of the applications. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed, on the short ground that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction in law to allot the premises in question to the 3rd respondent as she had not filed the application within the time prescribed. I am also unable to understand, on what basis the 2nd respondent entertained the application filed by the 3rd respondent after the last date prescribed for filing the application seeking allotment of the premises. The 2nd respondent has taken inconsistent stand while considering the application of the 3rd respondent as well as the aforesaid Sri Ahmed Inaitulla. Further, the 2nd respondent who is conferred with the quasi-judicial power was required to consider the claim of the parties in an objective manner and consistent with the power conferred on him as a quasi-judicial authority. The 1st respondent on whom the appellate power is conferred has also completely overlooked this aspect of the matter. Secondly, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had made a request for release of the premisesin question in her favour on the ground that she requires the premises for her bona fide use and occupation. The reasons assigned by her was that the premises was required by her for the purpose of carrying on business in a non-vegetarian restaurant by her daughter-in-law. When the owner of the premises makes a request that the premises is required by her for bona fide use and occupation, I do not find any justification for the 2nd respondent, especially when it is the case of the petitioner that the husband of the 3rd respondent had taken two premises from the petitioner and had sublet the same for higher rent, to reject the said request. The respondents 1 and 2 have failed to consider this aspect of the matter though it was specifically contended on behalf of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent does not require the premises for her occupation, and she sought for allotment of the premises solely with the object of subleasing the premises for a higher rent to others as has been done by her husband. It is necessary to point out that when the landlord makes a request for release of the premises in his or her favour, unless the authorities on the basis of the materials on record are satisfied that the claim made by the landlord for the release of the premises is highly unreasonable and arbitrary and the request has been made with the oblique motive of preventing the authorities from the allotment of the premises in favour of the third parties, the authorities are required to consider the claim of the landlord and release the premises in his or her favour. The entire approach made by respondents 1 and 2 on this aspect of the matter is also erroneous in law. Respondents 1 and 2 have proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner wanted the premises to be allotted to her daughter-in-law. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner wanted the premises to be released in her favour for the purpose of business to be carried on by her daughter-in-law. The claim made by the petitioner that she requires the premises for the purpose of business of her daughter-in-law must be treated as the claim made by the petitioner for her bona fide use and occupation. On this ground also, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. Since the orders impugned are liable to be quashed on the two grounds stated above, I am of the view that it is unnecessary for me to consider the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders came to be passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents totally on account of extraneous reasons and irrelevant consideration and it is mala fide in law.
6. Insofar as fixation of rent is concerned, in the notification issued by the 2nd respondent the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 600/- per month. However, in the Order-Annexure-B it was fixed at Rs. 500/- per month. No reasons have been assigned by the 2nd respondent for reducing the rent which was earlier fixed at Rs. 600/- per month in the notification issued. Further, it is also the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not heard before reducing the rent which was earlier notified. It is needless to state that the fixation of the rent if it is on a lower side and less than the fair rent it would seriously affect the rights of the parties. Under these circumstances, it was necessary for the 2nd respondent to have heard the petitioner before reducing the rent from Rs. 600/-to Rs. 500/- earlier fixed in the notification issued notifying the premisesfor allotment. Since the same has not been done, the rent fixed at Rs. 500/- per month as against Rs. 600/- per month notified by him also requires to be quashed and the 3rd respondent should be held liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- as notified by the 2nd respondent while issuing the notification notifying the premises in question.
7. Since the 3rd respondent was put in possession of the premises in question by virtue of the Order-Annexure-B dated 23rd November, 1990 the 2nd respondent has to be directed to put the petitioner in possession of the premises in question, if the 3rd respondent fails to voluntarily hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the petitioner.
8. Therefore, I make the following order:
1. The Order-Annexure-A dated 27th July, 1993 and Order-Annexure-B dated 23rd November, 1997 are hereby quashed.
2. The 3rd respondent is held liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month from the date of her occupation till the date she hands over vacant possession of the premises in question to the petitioner.
3. The 2nd respondent is directed to put the petitioner in possession of the premises in question within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the 3rd respondent on her own fails to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the petitioner,
4. The petitioner is also entitled for cost of this petition fixed at Rs, 2,000/- payable by the 3rd respondent within four weeks from today.
9. Rule is issued and made absolute and this writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms stated above.