Skip to content


Budan Sab and ors. Vs. M.S. Sharadamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. Nos. 1805, 1811 and 3048 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1986Kant198; ILR1985KAR2921
ActsKarnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 14
AppellantBudan Sab and ors.
RespondentM.S. Sharadamma and ors.
Appellant AdvocateJ.S. Vunjal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateC.B. Srinivasan and ;M. Suryanarayana Rao, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....disclosed divisive tendency intending to create division among the members of the panchayat on sectarian lines and hence they were guilty of misconduct which entailed their removal from the post of member and adhyaksha of the taluka panchayat. the procedure followed while passing the impugned order is fair and reasonable. the punishment imposed for the illegal and unauthorised activities indulged in by the petitioners also does not call for interference by the high court. - in that sense, the order is clearly illegal as it is bald and no proper reasons are given in accordance with the guidelines provided in the act itself......is sought under s. 50(l) of the karnataka rent control act. the original landlord moved the rent controller for fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition premises (non-residential) for enhancement of rent. petitioners are paying rs.85, 85 and 90 respectively per month as rent for the premises occupied by each of them. they carry on non-residential activities there. they resisted the enhancement on the ground that there was no justification for enhancing the rent. the rent controller after hearing the counsel for the parties before him proceeded to fix the rent by increasing 100% which is the maximum permissible under the act for non-residential premise.but a perusal of the order shows that he did not either receive evidence or direct the parties to lead evidence in order to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. These revision petitions are disposed of by a common order as the landlords in all these petitions are common and the tenants are the occupants of a part of a composite premises.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. Respondents are the legal representatives of the original owner - landlord. The revision is sought under S. 50(l) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The original landlord moved the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition premises (non-residential) for enhancement of rent. Petitioners are paying Rs.85, 85 and 90 respectively per month as rent for the premises occupied by each of them. They carry on non-residential activities there. They resisted the enhancement on the ground that there was no justification for enhancing the rent. The Rent Controller after hearing the Counsel for the parties before him proceeded to fix the rent by increasing 100% which is the maximum permissible under the Act for non-residential premise.

But a perusal of the order shows that he did not either receive evidence or direct the parties to lead evidence in order to have a correct picture of the situation existing in 1981 or observe the guidelines contained in Cls. (a),(b) and (c) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 14 of the Act. He proceeded to increase solely on the basis of the appreciation of general living standard and the cost of living going up.

When a duty is cast upon the Rent Controller by the Legislature to make an investigation he must carry out such investigations as are indicated in t he statute itself. If he does not verify the fair rental value on the basis of municipal registers based on the rent being paid by the tenants or for similarly situated premises etc., he will be grossly ignoring the statutory guidelines. In that sense, the order is clearly illegal as it is bald and no proper reasons are given in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Act itself.

3. Therefore, the petition is allowed the order of the Rent Controller is set aside with a direction that he shall pay attention to the guidelines contained in the Act for arriving at the fair rent to be paid by the tenants. Having regard to the lapse of time since the filing of the application by the landlord, he shall dispose of the applications within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Records received may be sent back forthwith. No costs.

4. Petition allowed.


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