M PATTABIRAMAN Vs. ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions are connected. The petitioner is the owner of premises no. 33 Office Venkatachala Mudali St. Triplicane, Madras. He is living in the ground floor of the premises and the first floor is in the occupation of the second respondent, who is a Government allottee. The portion in the occupation of the second respondent consists of a hall verandah, kudam, living room, bed room etc. The petitioner with the intention of demolishing the first floor and reconstructing it has sought for permission from the Corporation of Madras to effect such alterations and ultimately obtained sanction therefor under building plan No. P. 2597 of 1970 dated 28-7-1970. But as the second respondent was an allottee of the premises through the Government the petitioner applied to the first respondent for delivery of possession of the same and effectively asked for a release of the first floor from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. In fact, the application was made under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act. The Accommodation Controller is said to have inspected the plan and enquired the petitioner and ultimately was of the view that the petitioner's request for release could not be granted. The order of the first respondent reads thus:-

(2.) I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned Government Pleader. In a case where quasi-judicial tribunals adjudicate upon rights of parties after hearing them it is but elementary that they should give demonstrable reasons so that when it is scrutinised by any one in the higher hierarchy exercising visitorial powers he should be in a position to appreciate as to what was the real reason behind the order impugned or passed. It is now well settled that such judicial authorities ought not to lightly reject petitions by passing a non-speaking order which is totally bereft of any reasoning. Such reasons ought to form part and parcel of the order itself so that the order could be demonstrated to be one which is sustainable or otherwise by the superior court or authority when it has the occasion to refer to it and consider whether such an order is proper or regular. This view is accepted by the Supreme Court in one of its latest pronouncements in travancore Rayons v. Union of India The Supreme Court said:-

(3.) ON the ground that the first respondent failed to give any satisfactory reasons and indeed no reason at all to justify the challenged order, the writ petition should succeed.