Government continuing the possession of the premises even after transfer of the officer.

This petition is filed by the owners of premises No. 1/1, Sydoji Lane, Triplicane, Madras, for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Madras and the Accommodation Controller to release the portion in the ground floor of the said premises No. 1/1, Sydoji Lane, occupied by the 3rd respondent. The two petitioners, husband and wife, are the joint owners of the said premises. The premises consists of two facts the ground floor portion being occupied by two tenants, one of whom is the State Government. The portion occupied by the State Government was allotted by the State Government to the 3rd respondent R. Mathrubutham, who was employed as Upper Division Clerk in the Central Control Organisation of the Postmaster-General’s Office, Madras. On 27th August, 1964, the petitioners applied to the Government for release of the portion allotted by the Government to the 3rd respondent for their own personal occupation, as the 2nd petitioner had undergone an abdominal operation in the Vellore Mission Hospital and was not in a position to climb up the stairs. While this petition was pending, in October, 1964 the 3rd respondent, the allottee, was transferred to Karur. On 22nd October, 1964, the petitioners brought the fact of transfer of the 3rd respondent to the notice of the Government and prayed that that portion may be allotted to them, as it was no longer required by the 3rd respondent. The petitioners not getting any reply to their request again reminded the Government on 18th February, 1965. On 16th July, 1965 the Government rejected the application, of the petitioners for release of the ground floor portion without assigning any reason. On 20th July, 1965, the Accommodation Controller granted the 3rd respondent time till the end of August, 1965 to vacate the premises. The order stated that no further time beyond 31st August, 1965 would be granted. Subsequently time was extended upto 30th September, 1965 for the 3rd respondent to vacate the premises. The 3rd respondent did not vacate the premises. On 14th October, 1965 the petitioner filed a fresh complaint to the Accommodation Controller bringing to his notice the fact that the 3rd respondent had not vacated the premises and when no action was taken, the petitioners caused a lawyer’s notice to be served terminating the tenanc, with effect from 31st January, 1966. On 17th January, 1966 the Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department, sent a memorandum to the petitioners stating that, as the 3rd respondent has since been re-transferred to Madras City and had already joined duty in the Office of the Director of Audit and Accounts, there could be no objection to his retaining the house which stands allotted in his name. In the order it was mentioned that “the question of transfer of allotment of the house in the name of Akhilandam does not arise now.” The legality of the order of the Government dated 17th January, 1966, permitting the 3rd respondent to retain the house which had been allotted in his name is questioned.

Section 3 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960 requires every landlord to give notice of the vacancy within seven days after the building falls vacant. If within seven days of the receipt of the notice, the Government or the authorised officer does not intimate the landlord in writing the building is required for the purpose specified in the section, the landlord shall be at liberty to let the building to any tenant or to occupy it himself. If the building is required for any of the purposes mentioned in the section and if notice is given within seven days from the date of the vacancy, the landlord is required under the Act to deliver possession to the allottee by the Government or by the authorised officer. If the building is not required for any of the purposes mentioned in the section, the building cannot be occupied by the Government. The right to allot and occupy a building depriving the landlord of his right to po