Back
1974 Supreme(Mad) 464
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Veeraswami, C.J., S. Natarajan and V. Sethuraman, JJ.
P. Balakrishna Reddy .....Appellant(s)
Versus
The Accommodation Controller, Madras .....Respondent(s)
W.A.Nos. 3 of 1970 and 197 of 1972.
Decided On : 29 October 1974
V.P. Raman and N.R. Chandran, for Appellant.
The Government Pleader, for Respondent.
Validity of the notice for summary dispossession served on landlord.
Headnote:Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Section 3-Intimation regarding building falling vacant-No attempt for requisition order made by Government-Issuance of notice for summary dispossession on landlord-Held, notice not valid.
2. W.A. No. 3 of 1970 is capable of a summary disposal. All the same, we will set out the facts therein. On 12th April, 1963 the appellant purchased the premises in question. Apparently coming to know of this, the Accommodation Controller on 28th February, 1964 directed him to give a vacancy report. The .appellant gave certain particulars regarding his purchase. That was on 7th March, 1964. On 20th March, 1964 further particulars were called for, but by his reply dated 29th March, 1964 the appellant said that it was unnecessary for him to give a vacancy report. He -wrote on 1st April, 1964 to the Controller that he would let out the premises. On 7th April, 1964 an order of requisition and allotment was made under section 3 (3) and (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. This order of allotment was successfully contested. Ramakrishnan, J., quashed that order on the ground that treating the intimation by the appellant on 7th March, 1964, as one of vacancy, the order of requisition made so late as 7th April, 1964, long after the prescribed time allowed for the purpose was without jurisdiction. That order dated 23rd February, 1966 has become final. Thereafter, on 2nd December, 1966, the Controller wrote to the appellant to hand •over possession which the appellant refused by his reply dated 6th December, 1966. Then followed on 2nd August, 1967 from the Controller a notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for conversion of the building from a residential to a nonresidential purpose. The conversion was denied by the appellant and then on 17th February, 1968 a notice (evidently under section 3 (9) of the Act) was sent to the appellant by the Controller asking him to hand over possession. It was this notice that was sought to be quashed.
3. In the other case, the vacancy arose on 31st January, 1963. Since the owner did not notify the vacancy as required by section 5, but occupied the same he was prosecuted on 22nd May, 1963 convicted and fined. On 11th August, 1964, a notice was issued under section 3 (9) of the Act for summary dispossession. The petition was to quash this order but it was dismissed on the ground that it was belated.
4. In the first of these appeals, we are of opinion that, in view of the fact that the order of allotment had been quashed and the order of Ramakrishnan, J., has become final the notice of the Controller dated, 17th February, 1968 for summary dispossession under section 3 (9) cannot be held to be valid. That appeal has, therefore, to be allowed but with no costs.
5. In W.A. No. 197 of 1972 the question arises, whether, where a landlord without notifying the vacancy occupied the premises himself, he could be summarily evicted in exercise of the power under section 3 (9) of the Act. This precise point was considered and held in favour of the landlord in some of the decided cases, as for instance, in Srinivasalu Chetti v. State of Madras2, Amar Singh v. State of Madras3, which was by one of us, and in Viswanatha v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore 4, by Balakrishna Iyer, J. In similar circumstances, Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. took a different view in Ramachandra v. Accommodation Controller, Madras5. However State of Madras v. Amar Singh6, reversed Amar Singh v. State of Madras3. We may also mention that in so doing, it placed reliance on Fathima Bi v. State of Madras7, which was a decision of Subba Rao, J., as he then was.
6. In considering the question, we would rather first direct our attention to the provisions of the Act themselves, particularly of section 3. The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was meant to be a temporary statute, which was extended from time to time. Act XVIII of 1960 amended and consolidated the law relating to the regulation of the letting of
