High Court Karnataka High Court

Dr J Chandraprakash vs The Registrar University Of … on 16 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Dr J Chandraprakash vs The Registrar University Of … on 16 July, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
 '=Afi¥:«. '* '

IN THE HIGH COURT or? KARNATAKA, BANGALQSE
DATES THIS THE 15TH DAY 01? JULY, 20:19:"
BEFORE £W ' x V
THE H()N'BLE MR. JUSTLC-E _AJI'r: u 
R.P. No 370   « 1   V'
W.P. NO. gszgg/266s'V:(GmJV',:V' 
BETWEEN: '_   3   %   
1 D}? J cHANDRA?1§§é§':Asi1 VA " 
AGED ABOUT 50 was   * %

S/O LATE H1KJAGAD_EVEs:~1  V 
R/AT N(_)_.£5.-_14_ Ql;EARTELjRS._HEj_§3_BAL:'

BANGA§9EEiii§4   '

 PE'I'§'I'¥ONER.

(By Smt. l5?'A_RAH V'FA'f;i1r»a2};.;' ADV. FOR
Sri_ 3»: SHASRIKIRAN 'SHE'I"l"Y, ADV. )

  1 T_ " 'TH'F,.R;F.}G:ISfI'RA}? UNIVERSITY

_ " 1%.V%«o§*AGRI~ci31.frURAL SCIENCES
 GKFIKLQANGALQRE 65

 2 ma: ESTATE OFFICER

.. ,  ESFATE (}FF'iCE
_ "_Uf~IIV"ERSI'I'Y' QF AGRK3U§JI'URAL
' °sc£E;-:<:Es Gmrx BANGALORE 65

 RESPONDENTS.

{By $111 M8. RMENDRA, ADV. FOR
M/S KESVY ag <20; FOR £21552. )



This Review Petitien is filed 11/0 4'? Rule lfcsf
for review of the Order dated O3--O3--2006{"-pas$ed"~  'WP
26898/2005[GM--RES). _   "  .. 

This RP. coming on for oxdezfs   tflE3:_ 

following: V.' ._
OREER'

.

Delay in {fling the reviewiiietitiejx Condofied.

2. The 2 3.3.2006. It is
noticed thgfi ‘tlxeieaxned counsel for the
petitioner.x§}}e was granted till 80.4.2006
to ifybssession and the petition was

dismissed’ as *s.¥i.t’1′;¢.£_:1:*’-::a;x.i’s?1°.s..7 An affidavit is also filed pursuani:

.__t0 on–r£’§.3.200€>. Para 2 of the afiidavit reads

“‘f! i1-inderisake to vacate the quarters Ne. B~»14,

‘A Hebbal, Bangalore-24 on 30.4.2006 Wittieut
»_ Mfpaying penal ient.”

After disposal of the Writ petition and filing of the

affidavit the responéents have issued a demand notice to the

petitioner caliing upon him to gay penal rent for the w

extended period beyond permissible 90 ciaysg’—.’ihe

demand notice is issued, the present review..pefiti<:iii::is_ Iileéi; , _

4. Learned CO{.iI}S61 appearing fdf’ ihe’_;)etitioVrierVsub1I1its 1′.

that the petitioner was i’;I’aI1Sf¢3I’Ft3{1iA:4(i__1.i:11′.ii’i.1ig

academic year. ‘ She submiis’ siiicei toek
piaee in the middle of ‘_aeedei:iiie tlfiiieivpetitiener had
to retain the quarter academic year.
Hence, he is net

5. Leernefi for the reepcnderits

submits thatétbe rieguiaeag iwouzd indicate that the ailottee

_._oI1 treeefer “V-be_”‘_pennitted to retain the quarters on

A”v.payfment., rent for a period ef ninety days from the

cl3..tfi’.cf’hie’ In case of ailottee who does not vacate me

‘ ‘quarters the prescribed fime, he is liable to pay the

= ”

I have perused the order of this court as weli as the

affidavit filed and also the relevant Reguiatioxis.

4

27. Indeed, Regulatien 32 would inéieate that vt3′:;e”»a11ottee
en transfer xvii} be permitted to retain ‘x()I1

V

payment of fiermal rent for a. perieei of ninetef ftfefe’
date ef his relief. Thereafter for’
eviction. Regulaiien 17 \;v0:1’ic1__’vi;1céiie:;-fife
does no: vacate the tfié— time as
indicated in Reg1flatie1e:«….i”2_, pay penal rent at
five times the tme fhat the
Regulation rent is ehargeabie,
but ho;#zeve1’A slfighfly difierent in the case on

hand. It iés ;i£_41et_i1:V§.’ the petritioner was transferred

, A_ mic§die.ef__:he academic: year and he hae to retain

11is;’~ ., Bangaiere for educational purpose.

etheewfter afier the end ef the aeaéemie year an

Ieaffid4e5;it:”ie eise filed by him stating that he would vacate the

A ~~: ‘prVee:i’iees.

‘ 8. Having regard te the fact that the petitioner was

required to retain the quaxters in the peeuiiar

H99

cireumstarlces, I am of the View that the re$;;3oI:c1~e1ji peulci

not levy the penal rent as indicated in ‘

9. Censequently, the review a:s;m ¢a_g:’ ‘A ‘

directing the respondent V for fhe
period between. August’ ‘3lQ05;~t{§’ A — V4
Petition stands