Issuance of notice of vacancy u/s 3 and jurisdiction requisition.

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents, the State of Madras and the Accommodation Controller, Madras, to release under the provisions of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) (Madras Act XXV of 1949) the premises, No. 7, Pachaiyappa’s Hostel Road, Chetput, Madras, for the residence of the petitioner.

No. 7, Pachiayappa’s Hostel Road, is a residential house. The petitioner purchased it from the previous owner on 5th April, 1951. On that date Mr. Sathianathan, Member of the Board of Revenue, Madras, was the tenant in occupation of the house and his tenancy was not affected by the change in ownership. The petitioner averred that, when she requested Mr. Sathinathan to vacate the house so that she as the owner could occupy it herself, Mr. Sathianathan agreed to vacate the house when he found other accommodation. Quite independent of the question whether the petitioner could have desired to seek the eviction of the tenant, Mr. Sathinathan, there was section 7(3-A) of Madras Act (XXV of 1949) which barred such an application. Mr. Sathianathan vacated the house of his own accord on 30th September, 1953. The petitioner forwarded to the Accommodation Controller the statutory notice of vacancy under section 3(1)(a) of the Act on 2nd October, 1953. On 10th October, 1953, the Accommodation Controller acting under instructions of the Government, informed the petitioner that the premises were required by the Government, that is, he exercised the statutory power vested in him by sub-section 3 of section 3 of the Act. A further request which the petitioner preferred to the Government was rejected on 23rd October, 1953. Eventually the house was allotted for the occupation of an officer of the Government, Sri M.K. Shetty, I.P.S.

In the counter-affidavit of respondent 1 it was averred:

“On 12-10-1953, the petitioner herein again sent a petition to the honourable Minister for House Rent Control, repeating her earlier request. Sri M.K. Shetty I.P.S. Deputy Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India) Madras, wanted the petitioner’s building to be allotted to him for the reasons that the building which he was occupying was too costly for him in rent and he accepted it as a temporary measure for want of a more suitable building. As the need of Sri M.K. Shetty I.P.S., was a bona fide one, this respondent by its Memo. No. 5217/53-2 Public (General-C) Department, dated 23-10-1953 informed the petitioner herein that her request, could not be complied with and directed the Accommodation Controlller, Madras, to allot the premises to Sri M.K. Shetty. Accordingly on 26-10-1953, the Accommodation Controller allotted the premises to Sri M.K. Shetty, I.P.S.”

The learned counsellor the petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the Government and the Accommodation Controller to requisition the premises for allotment to a Government Officer when the petitioner, as the owner of the house, required it for her own occupation. That the petitioner had no other house in Madras of her own which she could occupy was not in dispute. All the same the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Government and the Accommodation Controller had no jurisdiction at all under Act (XXV of 1949) to requisition the petitioner’s house must be negatived. Section 3(4) of Act (XXV of 1949) makes it clear that, even if the owner of a residential house having no other house of his own which he could use for bis residence, desires to occupy his house after giving the statutory notice of vacancy under section 3(1) of the Act, the owner cannot occupy the building within the perod of 10 days specified in subsection (3). Section 3(3) gives the authorised officer, that is, the Accommodation Controller, or the State Government, the jurisdiction to requisition the house during the statutory period of 10 days and that