Skip to content


Rukmani Ammal V.M. Vs. the House Rent and Accommodation Controller - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 15201 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1981Kant162; 1981(1)KarLJ333
ActsKarnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 8(3)
AppellantRukmani Ammal V.M.
RespondentThe House Rent and Accommodation Controller
Appellant AdvocateK.P. Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateH.S. Kamla, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....the government has not filed a counter which clearly shows that such an application. 4. hence, both the orders of the rent controller as well as the deputy commissioner produced at annexure 'a' and 'b' are hereby quashed .the rent controller is directed to take fresh steps in that matter and depose of the same in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above.order1. the grievance of the writ petitioner is that the rent controller in allotting the premises in favour of respondent no. 3 has not taken into consideration the request made by the tenant occupying the adjacent premises, that the premises should be allotted only to a vegetarian as he is a strict vegetarian and that it would -offend .his feelings ff the same is allotted to a non-vegetarian *to quash order of house rent and accommodation controller. bangalore. d/-24-9-1979.2. on going through the order of the rent controller, i find that there is absolutely no reference made to the objections raised by the tenant and the deputy commissioner in the course of his order has observed thus :'that her client is a non- vegetarian , it is true but asked the learned advocate why was this not.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the Rent Controller in allotting the premises in favour of respondent No. 3 has not taken into consideration the request made by the tenant occupying the adjacent premises, that the premises should be allotted only to a vegetarian as he is a strict vegetarian and that it would -offend .his feelings ff the same is allotted to a non-vegetarian

*To quash order of House Rent and Accommodation Controller. Bangalore. D/-24-9-1979.

2. On going through the order of the Rent Controller, I find that there is absolutely no reference made to the objections raised by the tenant and the Deputy Commissioner in the course of his order has observed thus :

'That her client is a non- vegetarian , it is true but asked the learned Advocate why was this not raised when the allotment proceeding were held in HRC Court. In view of these the order of the Hours Rent Controller should be upheld and appeal dismissed

So, the Deputy Commissioner simply, says that it was not raised before the Rent Controller at all is not true . A copy of the application writ to the Rent Controller it produced in this writ petition, at Annex-C and the writ petition has sworn to it. The Government has not filed a counter which clearly shows that such an application. We received and the fact remains that it is not considered by the Rent Controller.' It is also not considered by the Deputy commissioner for he has not advanced any reasons why, in Me circumstances, the allotment should be upheld

3.Section 8 (3) of the Rent control Act stated :

In considering the causes if any shown by the landlord or other person in possession , the Controller shall , in case the premises to be leased is a part of the building , give due regard to the customs, manners and social convention of the persons occupying the remaining positions of the building, In so far as such customs , manners and social conventions are not opposed to law public order, morality or health.

4. Hence, both the orders of the Rent Controller as well as the Deputy Commissioner produced at Annexure 'A' and 'B' are hereby quashed . The Rent controller is directed to take fresh steps in that matter and depose of the same in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above.

5. Petition allowed


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //