A. ALAMELU AMMAL Vs. THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of the bungalow and outhouse of No. 9 Hindi Prachar Sabha Street, T. Nagar. The outhouse had been let to one Sundaram. The petitioner applied to the Accommodation Controller seeking to have the outhouse released for her personal occupation. The tenant contested the petition and the matter was finally posted for orders to 31st October, 1957. Some days prior to that date, the tenant is said to have reported to the Accommodation Controller that he had vacated the premises. On 31st October, 1957, the owner took possession of the premises. The Accommodation Controller issued a notice to the petitioner asking her to give notice of vacancy. On 3rd November, 1957, the petitioner sent a registered reply setting out the details. She also alleged therein that since the rent was less than Rs. 25, no notice was obligatory but nevertheless since a notice was demanded by the Controller, she was submitting one. This was duly acknowledged on 5th November, 1957. Thereafter, the petitioner sued the tenant for arrears of rent at Rs. 25 per month and obtained a decree.

(2.) THE Accommodation Controller started proceedings before the Chief Presidency Magistrate for the alleged failure of the owner to send intimation of vacancy. Notwithstanding her contest, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine.

(3.) IT is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court with a petition under Article 226. Her short contention is that the Accommodation Controller has no jurisdiction to demand possession of the premises, he not having done so within the period of ten days of the receipt of notice of intimation dated 3rd November, 1957. The petitioner claims that the fact that she had been wrongly convicted cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the Accommodation Controller.