R SRINIVASALU CHETTY Vs. STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant of the premises No. 17-B, Broadway, Madras, which is said to belong to one Singam Chetty, Attendrooloo Chetty's charities. He got an order of eviction against his sub-tenant one Srinivasalu Naidu on 10th April, 1957, who pursuant thereto, surrendered possession to him of the portion in his occupation on 13th October, 1958. The petitioner failed to notify the vacancy in the first instance as required by Section 3(1) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, but occupied the portion covered by the earlier sub-tenancy. The Accommodation Controller by his order, dated 22nd January, 1959, called upon the petitioner to notify the vacancy, which he complied with on 31st January, 1959. The intimation of vacancy was received by the Accommodation Controller on 2nd February, 1959. On 26th March, 1959, the petitioner was asked to show why he should not be prosecuted for contravention of Section 3(1) A prosecution followed which ended in the conviction of the petitioner. On 2nd July, 1959, the petitioner was served with an order of the Accommodation Controller, dated 26th June, 1959, directing him to deliver possession of the premises within a week since the same was required for Government purposes. This communication added that in default the petitioner would be forcibly dispossessed under Section 3(8). This petition is to quash this order.

(2.) The ground of attack is that although the intimation of vacancy was not made within the period specified by Sub-section (1) of Section 3, the intimation given on 31st January, 1959, was a valid one, and there having been no response thereto from the Accommodation Controller under Section 3(3), he was entitled to occupy the disputed portion and that the impugned order is therefore illegal. That the intimation of vacancy on 31st January, 1959, notwithstanding the fact that it was beyond the time specified in Section 3(1), is a valid one for the purpose of Section 3(3) cannot be questioned, in view of Pakkiriswamy Naidu Alias Varadarajalu Naidu V. State Of Madras,1957 1 MadLJ 161. There, Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., as he then was, was of the view that a notice of vacancy, though sent, beyond the period of seven days, is nevertheless a valid notice. With due respect, I agree with this view. The Accommodation Controller has not acted upon that notice of vacancy and intimated to the petitioner within the time specified by Section 3(3) that the portion in question was required for Government purpose. Instead, the Accommodation Controller purported to act under Section 3 (8) and issued the impugned order. There having been no intimation from the Accommodation Controller under Section 3(3) Within the specified period, the petitioner was entitled to proceed upon the footing that the particular portion was not required for purposes of the Government. But it is contended for the Government that it would be the case only if the petitioner had intimated the vacancy within the time prescribed by Section 3(1), and that he having not done so but occupied the premises even from the time the portion fell vacant, the petitioner by doing so contravened Sections 3 (3) and (3) (4). It is said, therefore, that the Accommodation Controller was in the circumstances entitled to act under the first limb of Section 3(8)(a)(i) and take possession of the portion of the premises.

(3.) There can be no doubt that in view of the decision of this Court in Govindarajalu Appa v. Accommodation Controller W.P. No. 656 of 1958, the petitioner, by occupying the portion immediately after it became vacant and even before intimation of vacancy was given, contravened Sections 3 (3) and 3 (4). Rajagopalan, J., in that case considered the scope and effect of the relative provisions in Section 3 in expressing that view. Here again, I may state, with due respect, that I agree with it.