Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR1923
..... pleader produced the records for perusal.this writ petition is directed against the order of the deputy commissioner, bangalore district, bangalore (as the appellate authority under the karnataka rent control act) whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner-landlady for stay of the allotment order made in favour of 3rd respondent, during the pendency of the appeal.2 ..... application as provided under section 8(5) of the rent control act. this failure on his part is fatal to his claim for allotment as held by a division bench of this court in rama rao t.n. v. deputy commissioner & ors., 1977 (1) klj 71 (also see: 1979(1) karnataka law journal 137), a.c. joseph v. spl ..... that she has been living in the premises itself and the premises was not vacant to be filled up by the authorities under the rent control act. the rent controller relied on the report of the revenue inspector as to the vacancy and the impression gained by himself on spot inspection. the said spot inspection by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR1591; 1988(2)KarLJ8
..... chandjain, c.j. 1. the question of law that calls for decision by us reads thus : -'whether a usufructuary mortgagee is a landlord for purposes of part-ii of the karnataka rent control act, 1961?''2. the facts leading to the controversy may be recapitulated :the jurisdictional hrc revenue inspector, vide his report dated 24-8-1981, intimated the vacancy of premises no. 24 ..... (upstairs), sri subramanya temple street, v.v. puram bangalore-4.thereafter the vacancy was notified by the house rent controller suo motu in hrc. alt. 209/81. a notice under s. 8(1)(a) of the karnataka rent control act, 196 1, (hereinafter referred to as the act), was also issued to smt. kousalya bai the owner of the premises. in the meanwhile, the writ-petitioner v .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR120; 2008(4)KarLJ573; 2008(1)KCCR116; 2008(2)AIRKarR25; 2008AIHC1615(Kar)
..... of this provision and as this provision is required to be examined independently and not with reference to any of the provisions of either the karnataka rent control act, 1961 or karnataka rent act, 1999,1 would take the view the the scope of clause (b) restraining the jurisdiction of court of small causes should be understood as ..... the scope and width or jurisdiction cannot be curtailed or whittled down by any other enactment, particularly, by referring to the provisions of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 or the karnataka rent act, 1999 as has been done in 'sarojamma's case supra.25. while i am of the view that the view taken and the ..... is the correct view, justified on the facts and circumstances and on a proper understanding of the provisions of the karnataka rent control act, 1961, karnataka rent act, 1999, history of the legislation of karnataka small causes court act, 1964 and a proper understanding of the provisions and the concept of court of small causes' as defined in section .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR276; 1991(3)KarLJ388
..... dustbin. such is not the intention of the makers of this act. they wanted the appellate power to be a vibrant entity which could when exercised be a potent instrument ..... simply saying well you had your innings before the rent controller and therefore it is not necessary to bat again before me. that is not the correct perspective to adopt and these officers must realise that the right of appeal given to an aggrieved person under section 12 of the karnataka rent control act, is not just to consign it to the ..... from, he does not even know what an appeal implies and why under the statute an appeal is provided to him from the order of the rent controller. all said and done the rent control act, albeit being a welfare legislation, seriously curtails the right of the landlord to deal with his own property at his will and discretion. it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR2599; 1991(2)KarLJ602
..... the other in his personal capacity. the learned judge in paragraph 16 of his order states:'obviously in ordering eviction the rent controller has usurped the powers of the court under section 21 of the karnataka rent control act. he has directed the tenant to hand over possession to the landlord who in turn is directed to report vacancy under ..... the 1st respondent in the year 1969. subsequent to the lease, occupation of the 1st respondent was regularised under sections 318 and 31c of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (here in after referred to as the act). on or before 20-8-1976, the 1st respondent acquired 2 residential premises, viz., no. 59, 1st floor, residency road, bangalore, and ..... section 4 of the act. the order is not only illegal, but it speaks of more than what the eyes can see. it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2009Kant160; 2009(2)KarLJ712; 2009(2)KCCRSN45; 2009(3)AIRKarR197; AIR2009Kar160
..... no 24 of 1996, on the file of the xix additional small causes judge bangalore, under the provisions of section 21(1)(h) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 [for short, the 1961 act], and for such purpose, has called in question not only the legality of this order, but also the constitutional validity of section 2(3)(g) ..... economy in a manner more suited to our state, by adopting some provisions of the model rent control law and some of the existing law of rent control in the state. therefore it is proposed to enact new legislation to replace the existing karnataka rent control act, 1961, which is due to expire by 31.12.1999.following are some of the features ..... of the proposed measure:(1) its application is now restricted,-(i) to any residential building the standard rent of which does not exceed rupees 3,500 per month in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR2215; 1989(2)KarLJ172
..... the interim order against the workers, the defendant was threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule premises without even approaching the court under the karnataka rent control act of 1961. as the plaintiff apprehended high-handedness on the part of the defendant, the suit for the above relief was filed. the plaintiff ..... that it lacked jurisdiction to award possession of the suit premises when even a statutory tenant cannot be evicted without recourse to the provisions of the karnataka rent control act. the trial court totally misunderstood the scope and amplitude of the decision of the supreme court in the case of ravindra ishwardas sethna v. official ..... .'this observation completes the misreading of the decision of the supreme court referred to above.9. the opening words of section 21(1) of the karnataka rent control act of 1961 are very clear and unambiguous. they say, -'notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(5)KarLJ345
..... deceased tenant, who have acquired right prior to coming into force of the act are protected, it is useful to refer to section 70 of the act itself, which reads as under:section 70. repeal and savings.-(1) the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (karnataka act 22 of 1961) is hereby repealed.(2) notwithstanding such repeal and subject to ..... . brief facts leading to this case are:respondent-landlord had filed a petition under section 21(1)(h) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'krc act') inter alia alleging that, the petition premises is required for his bona fide use and occupation. during the pendency of the proceedings ..... inconsistency or absurdity in its provisions. sub-section (1) repeals the karnataka rent control act, 1961. sub-section (2) clearly shows the legislative intent to exclude the operation of section 6 of the general clauses act to all pending proceedings under the old act and make specific and special provisions as to what should happen to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR579; 1992(2)KarLJ33
..... filed a memo asking for leave to withdraw the second appeal and suit out of which that appeal had arisen to 'prosecute his aforesaid section 31b and 31c of karnataka rent control act proceedings before rent controller, hubli, against respondent-1'. the second appeal was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the memo.5. we have no doubt in our mind that, upon ..... corporation area (the second respondent). the said property was thereupon notified for allotment under the provisions of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act'). on 30th march 1969 the appellant filed an application for allotment to him of the said property. the rent controller issued notice to the landlord of the said property (the first respondent) and to the unauthorized occupant .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1915; 1992(2)KarLJ1
..... ignores his statement as noted by him in the notes of inspection.4. the proceedings are initiated under sections 4 and 5 of the karnataka rent control act ('the act' for short). the authority under the act can clutch at the jurisdiction if the building is only vacant. it has been repeatedly stated by this court on several occasions that the ..... any evidence of his occupation at all, which he has also admitted in the cross-examination rendered. as per section 4 of the act, the landlord is bound to give intimation to the rent controller within 15 days after the building becomes vacant, provided that this sub-section will not apply to such buildings which have been obtained ..... 42 belonged to the landlord and further that premises no. 42 measured only 10' x 50' and not 10' x 25' + 10'.x 50' as advertised. rent controller further observes that the sanctioned plan was not renewed further from august 1984 and therefore the landlord never intended to put up a new construction. in the entire area the .....
Tag this Judgment!