SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(AP) 214

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : VAIDYA
Sripati Ramamurthi - Appellant
Versus
Accommodation Controller, Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, District Womans Welfare Officer, Visakhapatnam - Respondent
Decided On : 10-28-71

Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure for serving the intimation of allotment under Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, is essential for the validity of the allotment.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL ACT - ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 - SECTION 3(3) - SERVICE OF INTIMATION OF ALLOTMENT - STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RULES REQUIRED - POSTAL SERVICE ONLY PERMITTED IF OTHER METHODS FAIL - FAILURE TO COMPLY RENDERS ALLOTMENT ILLEGAL.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the owner of a non-residential building, informed the Accommodation Controller of his intent to let out two vacant rooms. The Controller allotted the rooms to the District Women Welfare Officer without serving a formal intimation to the petitioner as required by Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The allottee took possession of the rooms with the consent of the petitioner's son-in-law, who was in charge of the building.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Accommodation Controller failed to comply with the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Rent Control Act and Rule 4(2) of the rules framed thereunder, which require strict compliance for the allotment of buildings to be effective. The court held that the postal service of the intimation was not valid as the Controller did not attempt to serve the intimation in the manner prescribed by clauses (i) and (ii) of Rule 4(2).

Issues: Whether the Accommodation Controller's failure to serve the intimation of allotment in accordance with the prescribed procedure rendered the allotment illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Rent Control Act and the rules made thereunder must be strictly complied with to ensure the effectiveness of decisions regarding the allotment of buildings by the Accommodation Controller. The court interpreted Section 3(3) of the Act and Rule 4(2) of the rules to require that the intimation of allotment be served on the landlord in the manner prescribed, including personal delivery, delivery to an agent or family member, or affixing a copy on the premises. The court emphasized that postal service could only be used if the other methods failed.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to vacate their illegal occupation of the premises and awarding costs to the petitioner.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No. 18-1-25, at K. G. Hospital Road, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. The premises in question was purely a non-residential building, intended mainly for the location of shops. The said building had been acquired by the Accommodation Controller and was in occupation of the State government, and was later released in favour of the petitioner by an order of the Government and possession of the building was handed over to the petitioner on the 5th of April. 1971. On the 7th of June 197,1 the petitioner addressed a letter that two of the rooms on the ground-floor were not required for the occupation of the petitioner and that, he proposes to letout the said rooms. This intimation was received by the Accommodation Controller on the 9th of June, 1971. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not receive any communication from the accommodation Controller that the said rooms had been allotted by him in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Kent and Eviction) Control Act of 1960 (herein after referred to as "the Rent Control Act" ). It seems", the Accommodation controller had passed an order on the 15th of June 1971 allotting the said rooms to the District Women Welfare Officer. The allottee produced the said order on the 17th of June 1971 before the petitioner s son-in- law who Was occupying the premises. The petitioner s son-in-law, after seeing the order, handed over possession to the allottee on the 21st of June, 1971. After coming to know of the possession being taken over by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner waited till 23rd of June 1971, that bring the last date for his receiving any communication of the order, of allotment from the 1st respondent, and not having received any communication from the 1st respondent till that date the petitioner sent a notice on 23rd of June 1971 requesting the 1st respondent to evict the 2nd respondent from the premises as the petitioner was entitled, under the Act, either to let out the same to a tenant of his choice, or to occupy the same himself. The petitioner also went to Visakhapatnam and met the Controller in his office on 28th of June 1971 and explained to him that his act was illegal and requested him to have the premises vacated by the 2nd respondent, but the first respondent persisted in maintaining his illegal act; Hence this writ petition by the petitioner.

( 2 ) IN his counter affidavit, the Accommodation Controller has stated that he received the report of vacancy from the petitioner on the 9th of June 1971 and he made an order allotting the said rooms to the district Women Welfare Officer for locating "bala Vihar". A copy of the allottment order was sent to the landlord, who lives in Hyderabad, by post The contention of the landlord (Petitioner) that the orders of allotment were not communicated to him, is not correct. The fact of the allotment was also made known to the petitioners son-in-law, who residesin the upstairs portion of the building in question, well in advance, and he did not object to the allotment and gave the possession of the downstairs portion to the allottee. Thus it is evident that the petitioner s son-in-law who is residing in the upstairs portion and who is incharge of the entire building, is in the know of the allotment orders and that, even the landlord was intimated at Hyderabad before the expiry of the 15 days period, Vide Rc. No. 15-45/71, dated 15-6-71.

( 3 ) THE building itself was taken possession of from the son-in-law of the petitioner before the 15 days period stipulated in Sub-sec. (3)of S. 3 of the andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease,rent andeviction) Control Act 1950. Sub- sec. (3) df Section 3 of the said Act gives liberty to the landlord to let out the building to any tenant or to occupy it himself, in the event of not receiving any intimation from the Accommodation Controller before the period of 15 days. In the present case, the portion of t





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top