Rangaraj Vs. House Rent and Accommodation Controller

Rangaraj vs House Rent and Accommodation Controller

Disposition Petition succeed Court Karnataka Decided Mar 07, 1995

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/383219

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/383219
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: G.P. Shivaprakash, J.
Decided On: Mar 07, 1995
Case Number: W.P. No. 27301 of 1991
Subject: Property
Disposition: Petition succeed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1961 - SECTIONS 4 & 3(a) - Vacancy & building : Connotation - No part of building 'let or to be let' : not 'building' to attract Section 4.; In terms of Section 4 every landlord is required within fifteen days after 'the building becomes vacant' by his ceasing to occupy it or by t...

Key legal issue: Property
Outcome / disposition: Petition succeed
Acts & sections: Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rangaraj

Advocate C.N. Kamath, Adv.

Respondent

House Rent and Accommodation Controller

Advocate A.S. Mahesh, HCGP

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4
Reported In: ILR1995KAR1316; 1995(3)KarLJ505

Excerpt

karnataka rent control act, 1961 - sections 4 & 3(a) - vacancy & building : connotation - no part of building 'let or to be let' : not 'building' to attract section 4.; in terms of section 4 every landlord is required within fifteen days after 'the building becomes vacant' by his ceasing to occupy it or by the termination of a tenancy etc., to give intimation in the prescribed form by registered post to the controller regarding the vacancy. 'building' as defined in clause (a) of section 3 of the act, means 'any building or hut or part of a building or hut other than a farm house, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purpose...' in the instant case, no part of the building including the second floor purchased by the petitioner was let for residential or non-residential purpose and therefore it was not a 'building' by definition to attract the provisions of section 4 of the act. - mysore agricultural debtors relief act, 1966 section 18;[a.n.venugopala gowda, j] appeal - during pendency of appeal, madr act was repealed - proceedings stood abated - district court should direct restoration of appeal to its file - failure of office of madr court to transfer records to court of district judge - appellant filed application under order 9 rule 9 c.p.c. before civil court civil court though had no jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal held, order passed is coram non judice and illegal. high court under articles 226 and 227 of constitution can mould relief and direct proceedings to be restored to file of district court - 4. the learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly submitted that since the premises in question has been notified for allotment without showing the name of the petitioner who is the owner of the premises, the notification inviting applications for allotment of premises is bad in law......regarding the vacancy. 'building' as defined in clause (a) of section 3 of the act, means 'any building or hut or part of a building or hut other than a farm house, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purpose and includes--i) (ii) (iii) xxx xxx xxx'7. in the instant case, no part of the building, including the second floor purchased by the petitioner was let for residential or for non-residential purpose and therefore it was not a 'building' by definition to attract the provisions of section 4 of the act.8. since the building purchased by the petitioner was previously in occupation of the owner himself and was not let at the time of purchase by the petitioner, there was no obligation on the part of the petitioner to report the vacancy consequent to the vendor vacating the premises, and the petitioner as purchaser thereof occupying the same.9. the facts stated in the petition are not disputed. no statement of objections is filed by the respondent and therefore this court has to proceed on the basis that the facts narrated by the petitioner in the petition are factually correct.10. in the result the notification issued by the respondent notifying the premises in question for allotment was not legally permissible and therefore, the same is quashed.11. writ petition allowed with costs quantified at rs. 1000/-.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Shivaprakash, J

1. The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No. 26, situated in 6th Main Road, Vyalikaval Extension, Corporation Division No. 5 as shown in the 'Certificate' dated 30.10.1991 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, copy of which is marked as Annexure-A. The second floor of the said premises was notified for allotment by the respondent giving description of the property as No. 26, New No. 20, 13th Cross, 6th Main Road, Vyalikaval, Malleswaram, Bangalore-3. Copy of the Notification is marked as Annexure-C, In the said Notification the owner of the premises is shown as Dr. R. Mani, No. 30, Nagappa Road, Palace Guttahalli, Bangalore.

2. According to the petitioner when he came to know of the Notification for allotment, he went to the office of the respondent on 11.12.1991 and realised that the same was notified for allotment under Reference No. HRC (N) ALT.634/91 showing the rent per month as Rs. 750/-. Aggrieved by the said Notification this Writ Petition is presented questioning the legality and validity of the said Notification.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri C.N. Kamath, submitted that Dr.R. Mani who is shown as owner of the premises in the impugned Notification, is no other than the son of the petitioner and he is not the owner of the premises. According to the petitioner, he acquired title to the premises in question under a registered Sale Deed dated 4.7.1991 from the previous owner of the premises who himself was in occupation of the said premises, and though in terms of the Sale Deed the vendor had to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner on or before 10.7.1991, at the request of the vendor time was extended by the petitioner for the vendor to vacate the premises on or before 10.10.1991 and subsequently, time was again extended upto 5.12.1991. Copy of the Agreement between the petitioner and his vendor regarding extension of time is marked as Annexure-B.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly submitted that since the premises in question has been notified for allotment without showing the name of the petitioner who is the owner of the premises, the Notification inviting applications for allotment of premises is bad in law. Secondly, the learned Counsel submitted that since the premises was not previously in occupation of a tenant, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), there was no obligation on the part of the petitioner to report the vacancy.

5. Relevant provisions of Section 4 of the Act is reproduced below:

'4. Intimation of vacancy by landlords.- (1) Every landlord shall,within fifteen days after the building becomes vacant by hisceasing to occupy it or by the termination of a tenancy or by theeviction of the tenant or by the release of the building fromrequisition, or otherwise, give intimation in the prescribed form byregistered post to the Controller.

(2) Except as provided in this Part, no person shall let, occupy or otherwise use any building which becomes vacant without the landlord giving intimation under Sub-section (1) and for a period of fifteen days from the date on which the intimation is received by the Controller or within a period of one week after the termination of the proceedings under Section 8, if any, whichever is later:Proviso: xxx xxx xxxProviso: xxx xxx xxx(3) & (4) xxx xxx xxx'

6. In terms of Section 4 every landlord is required within fifteen days after 'the building becomes vacant' by his ceasing to occupy it or by the termination of a tenancy etc., to give intimation in the prescribed Form by registered post to the Controller regarding the vacancy. 'Building' as defined in Clause (a) of Section 3 of the Act, means 'any building or hut or part of a building or hut other than a farm house, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purpose and includes--

i) (ii) (iii) xxx xxx xxx'

7. In the instant case, no part of the building, including the second floor purchased by the petitioner was let for residential or for non-residential purpose and therefore it was not a 'Building' by definition to attract the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

8. Since the building purchased by the petitioner was previously in occupation of the owner himself and was not let at the time of purchase by the petitioner, there was no obligation on the part of the petitioner to report the vacancy consequent to the vendor vacating the premises, and the petitioner as purchaser thereof occupying the same.

9. The facts stated in the Petition are not disputed. No statement of objections is filed by the respondent and therefore this Court has to proceed on the basis that the facts narrated by the petitioner in the Petition are factually correct.

10. In the result the Notification issued by the respondent notifying the premises in question for allotment was not legally permissible and therefore, the same is quashed.

11. Writ Petition allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 1000/-.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1995 Same Parties Rangaraj vs House Rent and Accommodation Controller Same Subject Property Same Judge G.P. Shivaprakash, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4

Property