M.V. PERUMAL CHETTY AND COMPANY BY PARTNER M. PERUMAL CHETTY AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS BY SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were tenants of different portions of the premises No. 88/89, Godown Street, Madras, let to them for non -residential purposes, and they were in possession when the second respondent purchased the property in January, 1958. Notice of the application of the second respondent to the Government to exempt the building from the operation of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act XXV of 1949) was given to the petitioners, and their representations were duly considered, before the Government by their order, dated 5th August, 1959, exempted the premises from the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. Each of the petitioners applied for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Government.

(2.) IN paragraph 2 of the impugned order, the Government set out the reasons for granting the exemption sought by the second respondent.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that, as the Act did not provide for, or even contemplate eviction of a tenant to provide for the needs of any one other than the owner of the building, the exemption granted to the second respondent, to enable him to secure the eviction of the petitioners, would result in an eviction inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, and it would therefore be unreasonable. To provide for unreasonable eviction was to defeat the purposes of the Act and that vitiated the order of the Government, dated 5th August, 1959.