K. J. SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition, is directed against the order made by the Rent Controller, city Area Bangalore,, under S. 31c of the Karnataka, Rent Control Act, 1961 (shortly called the Act.) the petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No. 40, II Cross, sri ramapuram, Bangalore. He had permitted respondent-2 to occupy the premises unauthorisedly. In respect of this unauthorised occupation there was some proceedings initiated by the bent Controller under S. 4 and 10a of the Act, followed by an order of eviction against respondent-2 made on 28-7-1976. Before the order was executed, the act was amended by Karnataka Act no. 66/76 which came into force with effect from 13-10-76. Under the amended provisions certain rights were conferred on the unauthorised occupants of premises. S. 31b of the Act provides that any landlord who has occupied or lot out a residential building or any person who has occupied any building as a tenant in contravention of S. 4 or S. 5 may make a declaration in that behalf, to the Rent Controller. S. 31c of the Act provides for regularisation of such unauthorised occupation. It states that on receipt of the declaration under s. 31b, the Controller shall, if so satisfied pass an order declaring that the occupation or letting out from its inception is lawful. Taking advantage of these provisions, respondent-2 filed a declaration before the Rent Controller on 1-12-1976. On that application the controller made an order, which runs thus:"hrc RI 166/77 submitted. The declarant tenant is in occupation of the premises 42/1, II cross, Sriramapuram, Bangalore-21, from 10-1-1972, It is ascertained by enquiry that the tenant or his family members owns no residential building in Bangalore. Sd/- 7-9-77. R. I. HRC, City Area. Regularised. Initialled. 7-9-77. "the above order was communicated to the petitioner by an endorsement which is as follows:"the occupation of the premises referred to above by the tenant is regularised under S. 31c of the KRC 3rd amendment) Act 1976 from the date of his occupation i. e. , 1972,"being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has approached this court for relief under Art. 226 of the constitution. Interrupting the narration, I may state one other fact. The eviction order made against respondent-2 has been set aside by this court in W. P. 10429/77 on the ground that the occupation of respondent-2 has since been regularised. Interrupting the narration, I may state one other fact. The eviction order made against respondent-2 has been set aside by this court in W. P. 10429/77 on the ground that the occupation of respondent-2 has since been regularised. But while so doing, this court has not expressed any opinion on the legality of the regularisation. It is, therefore, now necessary to consider the validity of the order made by thei Controller regularising the occupation of respondent-2. Mr. M. S. Nareyana Rao, learned counsel for respondent-2, did not dispute the fact that there was no notice to thie petitioner on the declaration made by respondent-2, but he however sought to justify the order on the basis of the events that preceded the order of regularisation, He urged that there was no necessity to issue any notice to the petitioner since he has himself declared that respondent-2 was an unauthorised occupant and against whom he has also taken proceedings for eviction, It is said that he has brought an action for eviction in H. R. C. No. 2146/77 on the file of the III additional Civil Judge, Bangalore city. According to the counsel, when there was no dispute as to the unauthorised occupation of the premises and when the statute confers a right to have it regularised, it would be futile to hear the petitioner in that behalf. I think that there is a two fold reason to reject the contention. Firstly, the requirement of the notice should be founded on the principle whether the order of the Controller would prejudicially affect the rights of the petitioner and not on his possible or probable defence. There is no doubt, that the petitioner's interests have been prejudicially affected by the order of the Controller since he does not like rtspondent-2 to remain in the premises. The other reason is found in the in-built provisions of S. 31c of the act. It provides that upon receipt of the declaration under S. 3 IB of the Act, the Controller shall, if so satisfied pass an order declaring that the occupation or letting out from its inception is lawful. The proviso thereunder states that no such order shall be passed in favour of the declarant who owns either in. It provides that upon receipt of the declaration under S. 3 IB of the Act, the Controller shall, if so satisfied pass an order declaring that the occupation or letting out from its inception is lawful. The proviso thereunder states that no such order shall be passed in favour of the declarant who owns either in. his own name or in the name of his family any residential building in the same city, town or village in which the building referred to in the declaration is situated. Sec. 31c also requires the Controller to be satisfied, on those conditions. That satisfaction he could reach only after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration all aspects of the case and not on the unilateral declaration made by one party without notice to the other. In our system of judicial adminstration, we cannot conceive of a process by which a satisfaction could be reached by hearing only one party to the dispute. The order of the controller since falls short of these norms cannot therefore, be sustained. In the result, the rule is made absoluta. The impugned order (Ext- 'b') is quashed. The matter stands remitted to the Rent. Controller for disposal of the declaration made by respondent-2 in accordance with, law, after affording an opportunity to the parties. Respondent-2 shall not be disturbed from his possession till then or except under any process known to law. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .