Order.- This is a criminal revision case filed against the conviction and sentence of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate in C.C. No. 4131 of 1951.

The facts are short and undisputed. The petitioner before us is the owner of premises No. 312, Thambu Chetti Street, G.T., Madras. This property had been let out by him to X. On that X vacating the premises, this owner sent a communication to the Accommodation Controller on 6th June, 1949. There is no dispute now that this communication reached the Controller on the 7th. This petitioner has been waiting till the 14th and finding no reply from the Accommodation Controller occupied his own premises.

The question is whether the landlord has not complied with section 3 of Madras Act XXV of 1949 as it stood before the words “within a week” were amended into “within 10 days”. The section gives option to the Accommodation Controller, on receiving a notice from the owner of the house of a vacancy, to communicate to him within a week, a reply whether he intends to allot the house to a tenant or whether he is not going to exercise the option but allow the owner himself to occupy it. Therefore it becomes very important whether in this case the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document