MENGHRAJ THEKURDAS Vs. ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREMISES No. 16, New Avadi Road, Kilpauk, appears to have been taken over by the Government and allotted to a Government servant in the year 1952. In 1963, the petitioner purchase this premises from the previous owner. At that time, the first floor was occupied by one C. K. Nair and the ground floor by one Mrs. Sumati. The petitioner sought the release of the premises for the occupation of his son. He was informed that C. K. Nair was Government servant and the first floor had been allotted to him by the Government. On a notice issued by him to the other tenant, she vacated the premises and handed over the key to the accommodation Controller. Thereafter, the petitioner sought the release of the entire premises, but he was informed by the Accommodation Controller that the ground floor was being allotted to another Government servant. The petition originally proceeded on the basis that such an order of allotment had been made ten days after the intimation of the vacancy by Mrs. Sumati, but certain facts which came to the notice of the petitioner subsequently have altered the entire complexion of the case and these facts are as below. Mr. Sumati who was originally allotted the ground floor, was an employee of the Central Government. It appears that on 12-12-1959 he was transferred from Madras to Calcutta. Thereafter, his wife, Mrs. Sumati, continued to occupy the premises, though Mr. Sumati was a Government servant who was no longer employed in the City of madras, was not entitled to any allotment of accommodation. It further appears that this Sumati retired from Government service on 9-2-1961. As stated already, after the petitioner's notice to Sumati, Mrs. Sumati vacated the premises on the 26th December 1963.

(2.) IN the course of the arguments Mr. S. K. L. Ratan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pointed out that when Sumati ceased to be employed in Madras, the Government were not entitled to retain possession of the premises unless it was needed for any Government purpose or for the purpose of any Government servant. Mrs. Sumati, who was actually in occupation of the premises from 12-121959 onwards, was certainly not so entitled to occupy it. The fact that from that date till the present day a non-Government servant was permitted to be in occupation of the premises, it is urged, should deprive the Government of any further right to allot the premises to a Government servant in 1964, and it is on this short ground that the order of allotment is sought to be quashed and a further order for restoration of possession of this part of the premises to the owner is also sought.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the Accommodation Controller, some of the facts have not been clearly disclosed. It is state herein that K. Sumati, who had been in occupation since 1952, intimated on 20-12-1963, the intention to vacate the ground floor with effect from 25-12-1963. The counter affidavit reads as if this sumati was entitled to be in occupation of the premises till the latter date. But, during the course of the arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not deny the fact that Sumati ceased to be entitled to occupation of the premises from 12-12-1959 onwards.