(1.) THE writ appeal raises a short point as to whether the occupation referred to in s. 3 (10) (c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act should be actual physical occupation all the time. The respondent was occupying a portion of the building belonging to her, the rest of the portion being under tenancy. On termination of the tenancy in once portion of the first floor. the Accommodation controller, purporting to act under Section 3 (3), allotted that portion to a tenant of his nomination. He declined to give effect to Section (10) (c), though his attention was drawn to it. Srinivasan J, quashed this order.
(2.) THE learned Judge proceeded upon the footing that the petitioner herself was in occupation of a portion of the building. Before us, it is stated that it is not she but her daughter who lived in that portion. But we think that such occupation may well fall within the purview of Section 3 (10) (c ). Alagiriswami J. held the view in W. P. No. 2734 of 1969 (Mad) that when the section spoke of a building a part of which was occupied by its full owner, but the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building was let to any tenant, it contemplated actual occupation of the building by the owner. He also went further to observe that merely because the owner of it is keeping a room locked, it does not become a case of occupation of the building by the owner for the purpose of Section 3 (10) (c) of the Act. With due respect, we are unable to agree with this view. Occupation may, no doubt, be physical, but it does not follow that the owner should actually reside in a portion of the house all the 24 hours in a day. It will be such occupation if, intending to reside in the house, the owner keeps a portion therein locked, so that when the opportunity or necessity arises, the portion may be free for use by him or her. This is the view of Srinivasan J. with which we find ourselves in agreement. The learned Judge said:-
(3.) THE appeal is dismissed. No costs.