VENKATACHALIAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of and is directed against the order dt. 25-5-1978 made by Venkataswami, J. dismissing the appellant's writ petition No, 6790 of 1975 in which appellant sought to have the proceedings for allotment of certain residential accommodation in the town of Chickmagalur under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, in favour of the third respondent quashed.

( 2 ) THE residential premises in question is stated to belong to the hindu undivided family of the appellant and his deceased brother and after some antecedent correspondence which is at Ext. 'a' to 'd' between the second respondent and the appellant, the latter filed a report, of vacancy respecting the premises which fell vacant upon the previous allottee-tenant having vacated the same. Prior to the submission of the report of vacancy, the appellant had informed the second respondent that the premises were not to be re-let; but were required for the bonafide use of a daughter of his deceased brother and her husband one Krishnachar. The second respondent, however, directed a vacancy report to be submitted and suggested that the said Krishnachar do apply for allotment. Accordingly, the said krishnachar filed an application for allotment. So did the third respondent.

( 3 ) BY his order dated 11-10-1975 (as per Ext. K) in HRC. No. 1/75-78, the second respondent allotted the premises in favour of the third respondent. The appeal against the said order preferred by the appellant befor the first respondent in JHM. RPL. RC. 1/75-76 as per Ext. M) having been unsuccessful, the appellant filed the writ petition, from which this appeal arises, challenging the orders of the first and the second respondents.

( 4 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge who heard the petition two grounds were urged In support of the petition. The first was that the first respondent had not, in the course of the proceedings before him, complied with the requirements of sub-secs (1) and (5) of S. 8 of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961 (which we hereafter refer to as the 'act), and secondly, that the application of the third respondent was not eligible for consideration in-asmuch as allegedly, the mandatory provisions of S. 8 (5) of the 'act' requiring a deposit of one month's rent to be made before an order of allotment, had not been complied with. Both the contentions were negatived by the learned single Judge. The first contention was not pressed before us. On the merits of the second contention, the learned single Judge held : ". . . . . . I am inclined to the view that no serious injustice has resulted therefrom thus warrantinng interference with the order in question in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this court". "8. Moreover on the plain language of S. 8 (5) itself it may be seen that such deposit has not been expressly directed to be made along with an application for allotment. On the other hand, the provisions of the said sub-section merely enjoin that no order of allotment as provided under s. 8 (4) shall be made unless the applicant concerned "has deposited or deposits" one month's rent in advance for the purpose of payment of the same to the landlord. It seems to me that this requirement can be said to be substantially complied with when an allotte deposits such rent before occupying the premises pursuant to such an order of allotment. Hence this contention has no merit". It is the correctness of this order that is challenged before us.

( 5 ) SRI H. R. Venkataramaniah, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the non-deposit of one month's rent by the third respondent in compliance with the mandatory requirement of S. 8 (5) (ii) of the 'act- and it is not disputed that factualy there was no such deposit-would render the third respondent disentitled to an order of allotment. He contended that sub-sec (5) of S. 8 of the 'act' forbade an order of allotment unless the requirements of that sub-sec were satisfied

Click Here to Read the rest of this document