K.S. Bakthawatsalam, J. - (1.) THE petitioner challenges an order of the first respondent herein dated 28.10.1987 by which she has been asked to vacate and handover the premises to the third respondent herein.
(2.) THE short facts leading to the writ petition are : The third respondent herein is the owner of the premises at No. 11, Sydoji Lane, Triplicane, Madras -5. The said premises was taken over by the first respondent herein and allotted to the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/ - per month. The owner of the building, the third respondent herein filed a petition on 1.11.1972 for the release of the building and the Government referred the matter to the Accommodation Controller, the first respondent herein. The purpose for which the said building was asked for is for his own occupation. On 15.9.1984, an application was filed by the third respondent herein for the release of the ground floor portion occupied by the petitioner herein. The petitioner sent her objections on 25.2.1985. On 31.7.1985, the first respondent herein passed an order directing the petitioner to surrender possession of the building. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent herein on 3.9.1985. On 16.4.1986, an order was passed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department stating that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable and as such, the Accommodation Controller, the first respondent herein, was instructed to pass final orders on the request of the third respondent herein for release. On 19.6.1986, the Accommodation" Controller rejected the request of the third respondent herein on the ground that he is in occupation of the vacant portion at the first floor of the said building. The third respondent herein preferred an appeal to the second respondent herein under Section 3(A) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as Act 18 of 1960), stating that he has been appealing to the Government for the last fourteen years, that the request for the release of a portion in ground floor of his only residential property is for his personal occupation, and that he has also evicted the private tenant in the first floor of the building for the purpose. It was further stated in the said appeal that the third respondent herein needs the accommodation exclusively for his family. The Government of Tamilnadu, after considering the views expressed by the Accommodation Controller and the objection statement of the petitioner herein by G.O.Ms. No. 1811 Home (A.C.I) Department, dated 27.7.1987 released the portion in ground floor of the said premises from Government tenancy. In the said order, the petitioner herein was granted three months' time for vacating and handing over the vacant possession of the ground floor of the said building. A copy of that order was also marked to the petitioner herein, as seen from the records. Pursuant to this order, the impugned order has been passed by the Accommodation Controller, the first respondent herein, asking the petitioner to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the ground floor of the building otherwise action will be taken under Section 3(9) of the Act, 18 of 1960. At this stage, the petitioner has come before this Court praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent herein dated 28.10.1987. Mr. P.S. Raman, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as it has been passed without notice to the petitioner. The learned Counsel further contends that the petitioner herein is not aware of the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 1811 Home (A.C.I.) Department, dated 27.7.1987 and that it was not communicated to her. The learned Counsel further contends that, in so far as the petitioner was not aware of the reasons given for the release of the ground floor portion of the said building, she is entitled to question the order as it violates the principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel further contends that even after asking for a copy of the said Government Order, the petitioner was not given and that the only order which has been served on the petitioner is the copy of the order, which is impugned in this writ petition, by which she has been asked to vacate and handover the building to the third respondent herein.
(3.) MR . R. Krishnaswami, the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent states that the third respondent wanted the premises for his own occupation, that the petitioner is only an allottee and that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the third respondent and the first respondent. The learned Counsel points out that in para 4 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, she herself admitted that she had been given an opportunity to make a representation and she had made the representation before the appropriate Authority on 25.2.1985 and contends that once the petitioner had been given an opportunity, it is not necessary for giving another opportunity to her and that the failure, if any, to give a copy of the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 1811 dated 27.7.1987 cannot be said to be violative of principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel further argues that the petitioner had given two representations one on 25.2.1985 and another on 27.10.1986 and that the second respondent herein passed the order in G.O. Ms. No. 1811 dated 27.7.1987 after considering the objections of the petitioner and also after calling for the report from the Accommodation Controller.;