The Chief Justice.-This application arises out of a petition filed under section 7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for eviction in respect of premises belonging to the petitioners in Mowbray’s Road, Mylapore. It is a matter of admission that there has been default in due payment of rent within the meaning of section 7 (2) (i). The petitioners would have been entitled to an order of eviction, but their petition has been dismissed on the ground that the provisions of section 7 (2) of the Act were not applicable to the premises in question as the Provincial Government are the tenants and are exempted from those provisions by a notification issued under section 13 of the Act.

The only question which falls for decision on this application is whether this finding that the Provincial Government were the tenants of this building on the date of the application for eviction is correct. The relevant facts have to be ascertained from the correspondence which passed between the parties. On 27th May, 1943, the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, C.I.D., Madras, at Vellore, wrote a letter to the second petitioner herein who is the wife of the first petitioner who was then in Jail that the house in question would be taken up for occupation by an officer of that department on a monthly rent of Rs. 30, or the amount fixed by the Corporation of Madras whichever is less from 21st April, 1943, subject to certain conditions which are not material. It is common ground that except this letter there was no other document relating to the tenancy of this building. One H.R. Bangara, Sub-Inspector, was in occupation of the house since the beginning of 1943. From October, 1944, the fair rent for the building was fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 40 per month. The second petitioner issued a notice through her lawyer on the 26th January, 1945, to Mr. Bangara calling upon him to pay the balance of rent due from him calculating according to the order of the Rent Controller. To this Mr. Bangara replied on 30th January, 1945, giving an explanation for the delay and added that in future any notice of the kind may be sent to the Superintendent, Special Branch, C.I.D., Madras, as the agreement renting out the house was made to him and he was the officer to deal with such things. It appears that thereupon the second petitioner applied for a copy of the agreement and she was furnished with a copy which is marked as Exhibit 1 in this case on 29th March, 1945.

To ascertain whether the Government are the tenants of this house, it is necessary to advert to the provisions of the Government of India Act, section 175 (3) That runs as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the Federal railway authority, all contracts made in the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation or of a Province shall be expressed to be made by the Governor-General, or by the Governor of the Province, as the case may be, and all such contracts and all assurances of property made in the exercise of that authority shall be executed on behalf of the Governor-General or Governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorise.” Under this sub-section, His Excellency the Governor has prescribed the authorities who should execute certain classes of deeds, contracts and other instruments. Though several specific kinds of documents have been mentioned, there is no item which directly covers a lease of a building for the residence of a police official. The learned Advocate-General contended that such a lease might fall under item 2, i.e., contracts and other instruments for the purchase, supply, conveyance or carriage of building materials, stores, machinery, etc., and the provision of labour for building or other work and such like engagements. Evidently the contention of the learned Advocate-General is that the lease would fall within the scope of the residuary phrase “such like engagements”. In our opinion, the suggestion is f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document