P.I. KURIAN Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KANNAPPAN and Dhanapal, respondents 2 and 3, are the owners of No. 55, Rangasayee Naidu Street, Perambur, Madras. The building consists of several portions. The owners are in occupation of a portion for their residential use and of another small portion for their business as newspaper agents. There are eight other non -residential portions in the occupation of private tenants. One of these portions is in the occupation of the petitioner, Kurian, on a monthly rent of Rs. 45 where he is conducting his bakery and show -room. There have been litigations between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 2 and 3 on the other with regard to the tenancy of the petitioner. The landlords not being able to get the petitioner evicted through the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), they approached the State Government an the year 1967 seeking exemption of the building under Section 29 of the Act. In the petition to the Government they stated inter alia that since the portion in the occupation of the tenant (petitioner) was non -residential and since that portion was required for their residential purpose by way of additional accommodation, they had no remedy under the Act to evict the tenant. The petitioner opposed the request for exemption. Upholding the objection, the Government rejected the petition for exemption by order dated 3rd July, 1968. The landlords applied to the Government for reconsideration of their order stating that they were not permanently residing in the premises and were unable to move the Court for eviction of the petitioner. The Government referred the matter to the Accommodation Controller, who reported that respondents 2 and 3 were living in a portion of the premises and were using another portion for their business. After considering the objections of the petitioner, the Government granted exemption of the building from the provisions of the Act, by their order dated 2nd January, 1970. This Writ petition is filed by the tenant praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said order of exemption.

(2.) IN passing the order of exemption, the Government observed:

(3.) ON behalf of the landlords, reliance was placed upon the expression "as the case may be" occurring in Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and it was argued that the said expression cannot permit the application of the same alternative to both the contingencies or vice versa and that it is implicit in the use of this phrase that one out of the various alternatives would apply to one out of the various situations and not otherwise. In other words the argument was that if a landlord wants a non -residential portion in the occupation of a tenant for additional accommodation, he could ask for it only for the same purpose. No doubt, the expression "as the case may be" was construed by a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in Khan Chand v. State of Punjab , as being applicable only to one or the other alternatives only, but would not apply to -both alternatives. Mr. Ramaswami, Counsel for the petitioner, placing strong -reliance upon the decision of the Andhra. Pradesh High Court, pointed out that the learned Judge Venkataraman, J., had evidently overlooked the use of the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a)" occurring in Clause (c) of Section 10(3) and that if the learned Judge had taken note of that expression, he would not have taken the view which he had taken. Construing the non -obstante clause occurring in Section 10(3)(c), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that such an expression was used to distinguish cases of eviction, falling under Clause (a) and that, therefore, if the landlord satisfies the Rent Controller that he wants additional accommodation, in the same building, it is open to him to readjust the additional accommodation, in the manner convenient to him and that it cannot he insisted that the additional accommodation sought for should be used by the landlord for this same purpose for which the tenant sought to be evicted was using it. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also construed the expression "as the case maybe" occurring in Section 10(3)(c) as only meaning that the requirement of additional accommodation may be for residential or for non -residential purpose. The argument of Mr. Ramaswami was that on a proper construction of Section 10(3)(c) it should be held that the view held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court is correct. His submission was that if that view is correct, then it would follow that the landlords, in the instant case were entitled to apply to the Controller for eviction of the petitioner even though they (the landlords) want the portion in the occupation of the petitioner lot their residence, as against the non -residential use of the portion of the petitioner.