Back
1986 Supreme(Mad) 240
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE M.N.CHANDURKAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN
S. Ganesan
Versus
The Commissioner and Secretary to Govern m ent. Home Department, Madras — 9 and others
W.A. No. 856 of 1983
Decided On :Decided on : 23-06-1986
N. Varadarajan for T.R. Rajagopalan and T.R. Rajaram, for Appellant.
The Government Pleader and G. Subramaniam and A.S.A. Tajudeen, for Respondents
An allottee who is facing eviction under S.3A of the Rent Control Act has a right of representation before the appropriate authority, and this right is satisfied if the allottee is given an opportunity of hearing in the appeal proceedings before the State Government.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - S.3A - ALLOTTEE - RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a railway employee, was allotted residential accommodation by the railway administration. The respondent, the landlady, purchased the premises and applied for release of the premises from the Accommodation Controller under S.3A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Rent Control Act), claiming bona fide requirement for her own occupation. The Authorised Officer and the State Government, on appeal, granted the release. The appellant challenged the order in a writ petition, contending that he was not given an opportunity of hearing before the Authorised Officer and that the landlady's need was not bona fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant had made a representation to the Minister for Housing, which was forwarded to the Accommodation Controller, and that the State Government had heard the appellant in the appeal proceedings. The court also found that the landlady had purchased two properties for personal occupation and that there was no mala fide in her claim for release of the premises.
Issues: 1. Whether the allottee had a right of representation before the Authorised Officer under S.3A of the Rent Control Act? 2. Whether the appellant was given an opportunity of hearing before the Authorised Officer? 3. Whether the landlady's need for the premises was bona fide?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it was not necessary to decide whether the allottee had a right of representation before the Authorised Officer, as he had in fact made a representation to the Minister for Housing, which was forwarded to the Accommodation Controller. 2. The court held that the appellant was given an opportunity of hearing before the State Government in the appeal proceedings, and that this was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of natural justice. 3. The court held that the landlady had purchased two properties for personal occupation and that there was no mala fide in her claim for release of the premises.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and granted the appellant three months time to vacate the premises.
M.N. Chandurkar, CJ.
The appellant, who is admittedly in the employment of the railway administration was allotted premises bearing door No.92, Bazar Road, Mylapore, Madras 4, as residential accommodation on a rent of Rs.50. The present respondent No.3 who is the landlady, purchased the premises in the occupation of the appellant as well as another adjacent premises bearing door No. 93, Bazar Road, Madras 4, on 1st June, 1981.
2. Within six months, on 30th December, 1981, the landlady applied to the Authorised Officer under S.3A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act) that she bona fide required the premises in question for her own occupation. It is not very clear as to whether the copy of this application which is required to be made under Rule 6 of the Rules giving the details prescribed therein, was issued to the allottee. But the record discloses that he had addressed a copy of the representation which he had made to the Minister for Housing through the Collector of Madras, who is the Accommodation Controller, for his consideration. In this representation, the allottee has stated that he understood that the new landlady had applied for release of the premises in his occupation from the Accommodation Controller. His case in the said representation was that with a view to create an artificial case for release of the premises, the landlady got one sale deed in respect of the two houses and that she was free to occupy the upstairs portion of the premises No.92, Bazar Road, which was then vacant because the tenant of that upstairs portion had vacated. His case was that if he was asked to vacate the premises in question, it would be impossible for him to pay exhorbitant rent and therefore, the premises, in question should not be released. This representation came to be made on 9th March, 1982. The record discloses that the landlady also later on furnished to the Authorised Officer Xerox copies of the order of the Rent Controller and the Appellare Authority, which showed that the premises in which she was staying along with her husband, were the subject matter of petitions under S.10(3)(a)(i) and S.10(2)(ii)(b) of the Rent Control Act, and that the landladys husband was ordered to be evicted from the premises.
3. In the course of the enquiry made by the Authorised Officer, a statement of the landlady was recorded. Details of the accommodation available at present and accommodation available in the new premises purchased by the landlady were given by the Revenue Inspector and a report came to be made. After considering all this material, the Authorised Officer came to the conclusion that the need of the landlady was just and, therefore, an order came to be made by the Authorised Officer, that the allottee had to be evicted and the allottee should either secure separate accommodation of his own or should apply for allotment of another house. It is however, extremely, doubtful whether a Central Government servant would be entitled to the accommodation under the Rent Control Act.
4. The allottee then filed an appeal, as contemplated by S.3A(3) of the Rent Control Act. This appeal lies to the Govern-ment. When the appeal came to be filed, the Government once again made enquiries. The statement of the allottee himself came to be recorded and the Government later on dismissed the appeal. In the order dismissing the appeal the Government set out the contention of the landlady and found that her request for release was bona fide. The order notices the fact that the allottee has already been allotted -quarters as a railway employee. This order of the State Government was challenged by the allottee in the writ petition. Along with the writ petition he filed a certificate from the railway authorities that no accommodation had been allotted to him. However, the learned single Judge proceeding on the footing that the appellant had let out the premises, allotted to
