T. BALAKRISHNA MEHTA Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition raises a question under Section 3(5) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, as to whether the State Government would be liable to pay rent in respect of a building required by them for the occupation of their officers but possession of which was not given by the owner thereof. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 38 -B, Mount Road, Madras. The -Burmese Consul who was occupying the building vacated it on 5th August, 1955, the owner of the building gave notice of the vacancy to the Accommodation Controller, but he intimated also by the same notice that the building was in a bad state and required immediate repairs not in a fit condition for occupation. The owner also requested the Accommodation Controller not to allot the building to anyone. The Accommodation Controller, however, did not agree to the owner's request but allotted the building to the Regional Savings Officer, Madras, with effect from 23rd August, 1955. The order specifically stated that the petitioner would be entitled to receive rent from the date on which possession was handed over to the allottee. The allottee never got possession and on the petitioner moving in the matter the building -was later released to him by the Accommodation Controller. The petitioner, thereafter filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 360, from the Government as representing rent from 23rd August, 1955, the date on which the premises were taken over to the date on which the building was released, at the rate of Rs. 200 per mensem. His claim was contested by the Government. The suit was dismissed on the ground that as possession of the premises was not given, the landlord would not be entitled to any rent. This view was accepted by the Full Bench of the Small Cause Court on the application for a New Trial.

(2.) IT is contended for the petitioner that the section creates a statutory right in favour of the landlord whose building had been required by the Government, to claim rent from the date specified in the notice and as the section itself contemplates payment of rent in respect of the period during which the premises are in the possession of the landlord, he would be entitled to claim rent for the period covered by the suit. In other words the contention is that although possession of the premises was not given to the Government, it should be deemed to be a tenant under the landlord and therefore liable to pay rent till the date when the building was released as not required for their use. Reliance is also placed in this connection on the terms of the order of release issued by the Accommodation Controller which stated that