Ratnavathiamma Vs. Prabhakar Rai

karnataka rent control act, 1961 - section 14 - question of sub-lease: rent controller not competent to determine.; in view of the fact that neither of the parties is asserting that any part of the premises has been lawfully sublet, the rent controller is right in rejecting the application for amendment of the objection statement, to plead that the tenant has sub-leased the premises unlawfully, since that is not an issue which he is competent to determine. - allotment of alternative site: [mohan shantanagoudar, j] acquisition of revenue site of petitioner by bda with a promise to allot alternative site - compensation was not paid petitioner complied with requirements bda contending that it is highly belated and no provision after 2000 to allot alternative site held, the bda being the statutory authority will have to fulfill its solemn promise made by it in annexure-a. the petitioner as dutiful citizen has surrendered his revenue site based on the promise that he would be allotted a site by bda. the respondent authority which has undertaken to allot site is estopped from backing out from its promise held out to the petitioner who, acting upon the promise, suffered liability [gujarat state financial corporation vs. m/s. lotus hotels private limited, 1983 (3) scc 379]. it is trite law that when one of the contracting parties is cease to enjoy the character of state and therefore it is subjected to all the obligations that state has under the constitution. when the states acts of omission or commission are tainted with extreme arbitrariness, they are certainly subject to interference by the constitutional courts of the country. the respondent-bda has entered into a solemn contract in discharge and performance of its statutory duty and the respondent has acted upon it. thus, the statutory body cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily so as to cause harm and injury, flowing from its unreasonable conduct, to the petitioner. in such a situation, the court is not..........shall, after holding such enquiry as he thinks fit, fix the fair rent for such building. on fixing the fair rent for any building part of which has been lawfully sub-let, the controller may also fix the fair rent of the part sub-let.' 4. in the instant case, neither the tenant nor the landlord plead that any portion of the premises has been 'lawfully sublet'. according to the tenant no portion of the premises has been sub-leased by him. whereas according to the landlord, the entire premises has been unlawfully sub-leased by the tenant. whether the tenant has subleased the premises, either lawfully or unlawfully, is a question which is now pending consideration before the 'court' in the aforesaid hrc proceedings.5. in view of the fact that neither of the parties is asserting that any part of the premises has been lawfully sublet, the rent controller is right in rejecting the application for amendment of the objection statement, to plead that the tenant has sub-leased the premises unlawfully, since that is not an issue which he is competent to determine.6. since the application for amendment of the statement of objections made by the landlord has been rejected by the rent controller on the ground that such a plea is totally irrelevant for the purpose of fixation of fair rent, whatever observation he has made in this regard will have no bearing on the proceedings pending before the civil court.7. i see no error in the order of the rent controller. hence, revision petition is rejected.