Back
1976 Supreme(Mad) 283
High Court of Judicature at Madras
MOHAN
D. Durai
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Govt. Home Dept., Madras & Another
W.P. No. 1676 of 1976
Decided On :Decided on: 27-04-1976
For the Petitioner:D.K. Srinivasagopalan, Advocate.
The government has the authority to deny benefits under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 to employees of quasi-governmental organizations.
Headnote:
License Revocation - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 - The court upheld the revocation of the license granted to the petitioner, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to notice before surrendering possession and that the government had the authority to deny benefits under the Act to employees of quasi-governmental organizations.
Fact of the Case:
The government revoked the license granted to the petitioner and asked for possession within seven days. The petitioner argued that he was not given notice before surrendering possession and that he was eligible for occupation under the Act despite being employed in a quasi-governmental organization.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to notice before surrendering possession and that the government had the authority to deny benefits under the Act to employees of quasi-governmental organizations. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Revocation of license, entitlement to notice, eligibility for occupation under the Act for employees of quasi-governmental organizations, adequacy of time given for vacating the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that notice was not required for the revocation of the license. It also determined that the government had the authority to deny benefits under the Act to employees of quasi-governmental organizations.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
1. The impugned order dated 1st April, 1976 merely revokes the licence granted is favour of the writ petitioner, and he is asked to hand over possession within seven days. What is now contended by Mr. Srinivasagopalan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, is that before calling upon So surrender possession, the writ petitioner was not given notice and further the Government are not correct in their view, that having regard to the provision of S. 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, that the petitioner has become ineligible for occupation of the house because he is employed in Pallava Transport Corporation, which is a quasi Government organisation. I am unable to see any substance in either of these contentions. The question of notice will not arise in the case of revocation of licence. Even otherwise the petitioner is not in a position to state as to what prejudice has been caused to him by the non-issue of notice It is not his case that he is not employed in the Pallava Transport Corporation. That is the only fact which requires to be ascertained. Therefore, in my view, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused by the failure of issue of notice.
2. Once a house is requisitioned by the Government under S. 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, it is b the Government which become the statutory tenant and the allottees are only licensees. It is open to the Government under those circumstances to extend the benefit under S. 3(3) to only the Government servants and deny such benefits to the servants who are employed in the quasi-Governmental organisation. That is what is done. Finally on behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the seven days time given for vacating the premises is hardly adequate. This is a matter for which the petitioner has to move the Accommodation Controller and exercising writ jurisdiction, I cannot grant time.
For all the above reasons this writ petition is dismissed.
