HAKEEM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have sought for quashing the Notice bearing No. HRC. W. UAO/97/90 purported have been issued by the Rent controller, under Section 10a of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the'act' ). ( 2 ) THE I Petitioner is the owner and landlord of the shop premises bearing No. 77/1, D. K. Lane, Chickpet Cross, Bangalore, and the II petitioner is in occupation thereof as a tenant. According to the petitioners the premises was constructed in the year 1986 in accordance with the licence issued by the Corporation as per annexure 'a' dated 16-10-1985, The new building was assessed to tax by the Corporation as per assessment Notice dated 24-10-1986 (Annexure 'b' ). It is averred that the II petitioner was inducted into the premises as a tenant in pursuance of the Lease Deed executed on 1-12-1987 (Annexure'c' ). ( 3 ) IT transpires that on the basis of the Revenue Inspector's Report dated 17-8-1990, the Rent Controller issued a Notice dated 25-8-1990 (Annexure 'd') to the petitioners calling upon them to explain as to why action should not be taken against them under the provision of the Act. On receipt of the notice I Petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller and sought for certified copy of the revenue Inspector's Report which was refused on the ground that it is not a public document. However, by his written order the Rent controller permitted the petitioner's Counsel to peruse the said notice. As the matter stood thus the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the validity of the notice as being illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 4 ) SRI Paras Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that there is nothing on record to disclose that the Rent Controller had issued the notice under Section 10a of the Act after entertaining a reasonable belief that the petitioners have contravened the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, and in assuming that the II petitioner's occupation is unauthorised. ( 5 ) IN view of the contention raised by the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader was directed to produce the records of the proceedings. ( 5 ) IN view of the contention raised by the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader was directed to produce the records of the proceedings. The proceedings are started under the subject "unauthorised occupation of premises No. 77/1, G. F. Shop, 1st shop from south side, O. K. Lane, Chickpet, Bangalore is in violation of sections 4 (3) and 10a of the K. R. C. Act, 1961. " The first record of the proceedings is on 3-9-1990, obviously after the return of the Notice under Section 10a issued to the petitioners. The only material available on record before issuing the Notice was the Revenue inspector's Report dated 17-8-1990 in the proforma in which after giving the particulars of the premises and names of the parties it is stated that the premises has been unauthorisedly let out to the II petitioner on a rent of Rs. 500/- p. m. In the endorsement at the foot of the Report the Revenue Inspector has also stated that on enquiry it is found that the premises has been let out 20 days back after the previous tenant had vacated it. The order for issue of Notice under section 10a is made by the learned Rent Controller on the said report itself. The question that arises for consideration is whether the issue of Notice is in conformity with the provisions of Section 10a (1) of the Act. ( 6 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 10a reads as under: "where in accordance with the provision of Section 4, the vacancy of any building is required to be intimated to the controller and is not so intimated, and the Controller believes or has reason to believe that any person has in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 4 occupied the building or any part thereof, he may by notice in writing, call upon the person in occupation to show cause, within a time to be fixed by the controller, why such person should not be evicted therefrom. " ( 7 ) A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that before initiating proceedings under Section 4 and issue of notice regarding unauthorised occupation the Controller should entertain belief or has reason to believe that any person has in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 4 occupied the building or any part thereof. " ( 7 ) A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that before initiating proceedings under Section 4 and issue of notice regarding unauthorised occupation the Controller should entertain belief or has reason to believe that any person has in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 4 occupied the building or any part thereof. ( 8 ) IT is thus clear that before assuming jurisdiction it is incumbent upon the Rent Controller to record his reason to believe that contravention of Section 4 (2) has taken place. No such satisfaction has been recorded either on the Revenue Inspector's Report or in the proceedings on the basis of which the Notice is issued. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that the Rent Controller's satisfaction as provided under Section 10a (1) should be taken as implied before issuing the Notice. It is not possible to accept this contention. It appears to be well settled that the provisions of the Rent control Act providing extraordinary remedies being inroads upon the landlord's freedom of action, have to be construed strictly in accordance with the words actually used by the Legislature and cannot be given an extended meaning. In HUKUMCHAND vs UNION OF INDIA, it is observed thus: "it is well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of a drastic nature and its exercise in a mode other than the one provided will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. " ( 9 ) IN the instant case it cannot be disputed that the proceedings initiated by the Rent Controller under Section 10a would lead to drastic consequences both for the occupant of the premises and the landlord himself. No statutory form of notice under Section 10a of the act is prescribed either in the Act or Rules. The Notice itself does not disclose that there was application of mind by the Rent Controller before assuming jurisdiction under Section 10a of the Act 'as he believes or reason to believe' that contravention of sub-section (2) of section 4 in respect of the premises has occurred. The Notice itself does not disclose that there was application of mind by the Rent Controller before assuming jurisdiction under Section 10a of the Act 'as he believes or reason to believe' that contravention of sub-section (2) of section 4 in respect of the premises has occurred. On the contrary, unauthorised occupation of the premises in violation of Section 4 (3) of section 10a of the Act is assumed merely on the basis of the revenue Inspector's Report, without independent application of mind by the Rent Controller and without disclosing the existence of such reasonable belief authorising him to assume jurisdiction to take action under the said provision. In that view of the matter I have no hesitation in holding that the Notice and the proceedings initiated thereunder clearly amounts to arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction by the authority under the Act, and hence cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) AT this stage it appears to be pertinent to mention that the petitioners have made certain general allegations against the Rent controller and the other authorities without giving any particulars justifying the alleged remarks. The Rent Controller has filed counter controverting the same. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has fairly conceded that there is no material to sustain the said remarks and filed a Memo withdrawing all the allegations made in paras 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the petition and consequential amendment is made in the petition deleting the said paragraphs. ( 11 ) IN the view I have taken above, Writ Petition is allowed. The notice dated 25-8-1990 Annexure-D issued to the petitioner and the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the said notice, are hereby quashed. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs. --- *** --- .