M.M. ABBAS BROS., REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MOHEIN BHAI AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are connected appeals respectively by M.M. Abbas Bros., carrying on business at No. 7, Sembudoss Street, G.T., Madras, and Saleh Bros., similarly carrying on business at No. 6, Sembudoss Street, G.T., Madras, from the judgment of Ramachandra Iyer, J., (as he then was) in W.P. Nos. 732 and 733 of 1958 before the learned Judge. Both the appellants pray the Court for the issue of a Writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashing the order of Government in G.O. Ms. No. 2216 (Home Department) dated 5th August, 1958, exempting the above -named business premises from the operation of Section 7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (Act XXV of 1949), by virtue of powers vested in Government under Section 13 of the said Act. The learned Judge (Ramachandra Iyer, J.) dismissed the Writ Petitions, holding that, under the circumstances of the matter, the Government were justified in the exercise of powers of exemption under Section 13 of the Act. As the entire question involved is of some importance, particularly with reference to the dicta of this Court in Abdul Subban Sahib & Sons v. : (1959)2MLJ387 interpreted in the light of other decisions of this Court which have sought to explain that decision, and to the observations of other Lordships of the Supreme Court upon the ambit and character of the powers of Government under Section 13, in P.J. Irani v. State of Madras : (1962)1 An. W.R. 92 :, (1962) 1 M.L.J.92 :, (1962) 1 S.C.J. 194 :, A.I.R 1961 (S.G.) 1731 it becomes necessary to set forth the facts of these two instances of exemption precisely and in some detail.

(2.) FOR , in order to do justice to the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants (Sri Mohan Kumaramangaiam), it is essential that the grounds which prompted the Government to exercise their powers of exemption should be narrowly scrutinised, in the light" of the background of facts against which the exemptions took place. It is only if this is done that we can be in a position to estimate the degree to which these acts of exemption were either arbitrary, or so opposed to the policy and principles of the Act itself, as to justify the striking down of the relevant order under the powers of judicial review.

(3.) THE grounds upon which this exemption was sought by the landlord in 1956 are the same as the grounds upon which he later successfully obtained orders of exemption in 1957, after failing in his initial attempt. The landlord averred that his business was expanding, and that the ground -floor of No. 15, Sembudoss Street was totally inadequate for his business, and very congested. He was paying a rent of nearly Rs. 550 per month for his office buildings and stock godowns, while he was getting only a rent of Rs. 425 per month for the two premises Nos. 6 and 7 Sembudoss Street. If he improved those buildings, he could obtain nearly a rent of Rs. 1,000 per month and also have decent accommodation for his office. Actually these two tenants of the buildings (appellants), had other available accommodation of their own. By getting control of the premises, he could accommodate the godowns and office in one place, and improve his business. Further, the buildings were old and dilapidated, and urgently required alterations and improvements. It is not in dispute that, after the appellants filed objections to this memorandum of the landlord, a report was submitted to Government by the Accommodation Controller, Madras, after making a local inspection. That officer was of the opinion that the landlord genuinely required additional accommodation for his expanding business, that it was but fair that he should occupy buildings owned by him in the locality where the particular trade was being carried on, that the buildings were dilapidated and urgently required repairs and hence that the request of the landlord was reasonable.