(1.) THESE are two connected appeals referred for disposal by a Full Bench as the correctness of the decision in Stale of Madras v. Amar Singh, (1964) 77 L.W. 504, was doubted.
(2.) W .A. No. 3 of 1970 is capable of a summary disposal. All the same, we will set out the facts therein. On 12th April, 1963 the appellant purchased the premises in question. Apparently coming to know of this, the Accommodation Controller on 28th February, 1964 directed him to give a vacancy report. The appellant gave certain particulars regarding his purchase. That was on 7th March, 1964. On 20th March, 1964 further particulars were called for, but by his reply dated 29th March, 1964 the appellant said that it was unnecessary for him to give a vacancy report. He wrote on 1st April, 1964 to the Controller that he would let out the premises. On 7th April, 1964 an order of requisition and allotment was made under Section 3(3) and (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. This order of allotment was successfully contested. Ramakrishnan, J., quashed that order on the ground that treating the intimation by the appellant on 7th March, 1964, as one of vacancy, the order of requisition made so late as 7th April, 1964, long after the prescribed time allowed for the purpose was without jurisdiction. That order dated 23rd February, 1966 has become final. Thereafter, on 2nd December, 1966, the Controller wrote to the appellant to hand over possession which the appellant refused by his reply dated 6th December, 1966. Then followed on 2nd August, 1967 from the Controller a notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for conversion of the building from a residential to a non -residential purpose. The conversion was denied by the appellant and then on 17th February, 1968 a notice (evidently under Section 3(9) of the Act) was sent to the appellant by the Controller asking him to hand over possession. It was this notice that was sought to be quashed.
(3.) IN the first of these appeals, we are of opinion that, in view of the fact that the order of allotment had been quashed and the order of Ramakrishnan, J., has become final the notice of the Controller dated, 17th February, 1968 for summary dispossession under Section 3(9) cannot be held to be valid. That appeal has, therefore, to be allowed but with no costs.