Exemption of a particular building forms the provisions of the Act whether valid.

K.A. Swami, C.J.

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 10.7.1990 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing W.P. No.9055 of 1987 in which the petitioner/ appellant has sought for quashing G.O.Ms. No. 1824, dated 29.7.1987, passed in exercise of powers conferred by Sec.29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), exempting the premises bearing Door No.444, Tiruvottiyur High Road, Madras 600 021 in the occupation of the petitioner/ appellant from all the provisions of the Act.

2. Learned single Judge has upheld the order of the State Government on the grounds that the exercise of power by the State Government is reasonable, that it does not suffer from any arbitrariness that the landlord has no remedy under the Act, and, therefore, the exemption, granted does not call for interference.

3. Before us, it was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it cannot be said that the first respondent has no remedy under the Act, inasmuch as it can seek conversion of the premises into non-residential one under Sec.21 of the Act and then seek eviction under Sec.l() (3)(a) of the Act. That the exercise of power under Sec.29 of the Act should not result in adding a ground for eviction that it should not be exercised in favour of the landlord, who has a remedy under the Act. In support of these contentions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) P.J. Irani v. State of Madras, (1962)1 M.LJ. (S.C.) 92: (1962) 1 An.W.R. (S.C.) 92: (1962) 1 S.C.J. 194: (1962) 2 S.C.R. 169: A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1731.

(ii) P.N.R. Chettiar v. State, A.I.R. 1970 Mad. 306.

(iii) Abdul Subhan Sahib and Sons v. State of Madras, (1959)2 M.LJ. 387.

4. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the State Government has exercised their powers under Sec.29 of the Act keeping inview the policy of the Act and also the provisions contained in the Act and also of the fact that the landlord has no other remedy under the Act; that Sec.29 of the Act confers power on the State Government to grant exemption to any building or class of buildings. Under Sec.21 of the Act, if the landlord wants to use the residential building for nonresidential purposes, he should obtain permission in writing of the controller for conversion of the residential building into a non-residential building. Whereas, in the instant case, the building is in the occupation of the tenant, which, according to the tenant, is predominately residential, the landlord cannot seek conversion of the same for non-residential use as long as it continues to be in the occupation of the tenant.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, while adopting the contentions of the learned Government Pleader, submitted that the first respondent, being a commercial organisation, has no remedy under the Act to seek possession of a residential building.

6. In the light of these contentions, the following points arise for consideration:

1. Whether the first respondent has a remedy for eviction of the appellant under the Act?

2. Whether the impugned Government Order of the State Government dated 29.7.1987 is valid in law?

7. Point 1: Sec.21 of the Act reads thus:

"No residential building shall be converted into a non- residential building except with the permission in writing of the Controller."

It places an embargo on the use of residential building for non-residential purposes without the written permission of the Controller. In unmistakable terms, Sec.21 of the Act provides that no residential building shall be converted into a non-residential building, except with the permission in writing of the controller. Therefore, a person seeking conversion of the residential building into a non-residential building, should be in occupation of the residential building for converting it into a non-residential building. It is not possible for the landlord to seek conv