Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Allotment of House Under Rent Control Order. The allotment order was made before the Constitution came into force, thus not violating fundamental rights.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a dispute over the allotment of a house in Bangalore under the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948. The petitioner, D. K. Nabhirajiah, owned the premises which became vacant on September 1, 1949. Following a notification of vacancy, the Rent Controller allotted the house to another individual, Sri Aswathanarayana Rao, for use as a children's school. The petitioner contested the allotment, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 31(2) and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, as well as claiming discrimination under Article 14. After several unsuccessful appeals and petitions, including to the High Court, the petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the allotment order was valid as it was made before the Constitution came into force, and the petitioner had lost his right to possession prior to the dispossession order. The Court found that the legislative provisions allowed for such allotments and that the actions taken were within the powers conferred by the Control Order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Property Rights - Allotment of Property - Constitution of India, Articles 31(2), 19(1)(f) - The order of allotment was made before the Constitution came into force, thus not contravening the fundamental rights. The petitioner lost the right to possession earlier due to the Controller's order, making the subsequent dispossession valid. Held that the allotment was lawful under the Control Order (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the orders allotting the house contravened the fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the allotment order was valid as it was made before the Constitution came into force and the petitioner had lost his right to possession earlier.

Law Points

  • Constitutional validity
  • property rights
  • administrative orders
  • legislative powers
  • public interest
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

Petition No. 297 of 1951

1952-05-26

Chandrashekhara Aiyar, Patanjali Sastri, Mukherjea, Das

S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, A. R. Somanatha Iyer, K. Ramaseshayya Chowdhury

D. K. Nabhirajiah

The State of Mysore and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the allotment of property under the Rent Control Order.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the allotment order and restoration of possession.

Filing Reason

Alleged violation of fundamental rights and improper allotment.

Previous Decisions

Multiple appeals and petitions dismissed by lower authorities.

Issues

Validity of the allotment order under the Constitution Discrimination in the allotment process

Submissions/Arguments

The allotment contravenes fundamental rights The order is discriminatory and illegal

Ratio Decidendi

The allotment order was valid as it was made prior to the Constitution's enforcement, and the petitioner lost his right to possession due to the Controller's order.

Judgment Excerpts

The order of allotment was made before the Constitution came into force. The petitioner lost the right to possession earlier due to the Controller's order.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a notification of vacancy, contested the allotment through various appeals, including to the High Court, and ultimately sought relief from the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order: Clause 3, Clause 4
  • Constitution of India: Articles 31(2), 19(1)(f)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Actress for Defamation and Obscenity Allegations — Remarks on Premarital Sex Not Obscene. Citing lack of prima facie case and political motivations behind complaints.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes High Court's Transfer Order Against DGP in Criminal Writ Petition Due to Violation of Natural Justice. Investigation Transferred to CBI as Both Parties Consented to Ensure Impartiality Under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.