CHANDRA Vs. ACCOMMODATION DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the landlady against her conviction under S. 3(5) read with S. 33 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and a fine of Rs. 200 imposed on her by the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore. The house in question is No. 4 Casa Major Road, Egmore. The tenant Komathi Ammal, who was in occupation informed Chellammal, the mother of the petitioner herein, that she would be vacating the house on 28th February 1963 by Ex. P.1 dated 12th February 1963. The Accommodation Controller coming to know that the premises was likely to fall vacant issued Ex. P -2 dated 14th February, 1963, calling upon Chellammal to give vacancy report as required under S. 3(1) of the Act as soon as the building fell vacant. On 19th February, 1963 Chellammal and the petitioner wrote to the Accommodation Controller Ex. P -3 acknowledging Ex. P -2. In that letter it was stated that the premises belonged to the petitioner under a settlement deed executed in her favour by her father, that out of the several houses given to the petitioner, the premises No. 4 Casa Major Road was the biggest and the best, that as the petitioner's marriage was being arranged, she required separate residence for her and that, therefore, the premises No. 4, Casa Major Road should be released to her. On 21st February, 1963, Ex. P -4, the Accommodation Controller issued an offering notice stating that the premises was vacant and calling upon the officers who were interested in occupying the house to inspect the house and give their consent if they were satisfied with the building and wanted it for their occupation. On 27th February, 1963, by Ex. P -5 the Accommodation Controller passed an order under S. 3(3) of the Act informing the petitioner that the premises was required for Governmental purposes and that the premises should not be occupied by the landlady or let out to any person but should be handed over to the allottee or to the person authorised by the Accommodation Controller. On the same day, the petitioner wrote Ex. D -3, stating that the tenant Komathiammal had not so far given vacant possession of the building and that she was under the impression that she could send the vacancy report after taking possession of the house. It also referred to her request for the release of the building for her own occupation. Pending decision on her request, she also prayed that the house should not be allotted to any one. On 28th February, 1963, the premises fell vacant and on 3rd March, 1963, the petitioner gave vacancy notice Ex. D -5. The petitioner also stated that the house was in a very bad condition and required repairs. Again the petitioner reiterated her request for release of the building for her own use. On 6th March, 1963 the Accommodation Controller served a notice Ex. P -8 through a special messenger. In that letter, the Accommodation Controller informed the petitioner that the premises was taken over under S. 3(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It also referred to his statement that the premises was required for Governmental purposes and that vacant possession should be handed over to the person authorised by the Accommodation Controller. He invited the attention of the petitioner to S. 3(5) of the Act, and stated that it had been brought to his notice that the flooring had been dug up and removed from the front verandah of the house and that the act was highly irregular and in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner was called upon to restore the building to its original condition and hand over the same to the Accommodation Deputy Tahsildar on or before 12th March, 1963. The petitioner was also informed that if she failed to do so, she would be prosecuted under S. 33 of the Act. On the same date, under Ex. P -6, the Government allotted the premises to an I.A.S. Officer as a special case, case. On 11th March, 1963 under Ex. B -9 the petitioner wrote to the Accommodation Controller stating that she had been acting in conformity with the law and that she had given notice within seven days of of the building falling vacant. She also stated that as the repairs were being carried on, it would take some time to put the building in good tenantable condition. In the circumstances, she submitted that it was unnecessary and even unfair to threaten her with prosecution. On 20th March, 1963, the Government by Ex. P -10 approved the action of the Accommodation Controller in calling upon the landlady to restore the premises to its original condition. On the facts above stated, it has to be determined whether the petitioner has contravened S. 3(5) of the Act.

(2.) Sec. 3(1)(a)(i) of the Act provides that every landlord shall, within 7 days after the building becomes vacant by the termination of tenancy, give notice of the vacancy in writing to the officer authorised in that behalf by the Government. The tenant also is required to give notice within 7 days after the building becomes vacant in writing to the officer authorised by the Government. S. 3(3) provides that if, within 7 days of the receipt by the authorised officer of a notice of vacancy by the landlord under Sub -S. (1), the Government or the authorised officer does not intimate to the landlord in writing that the building is required for the purposes of the State or Central Government or of any local authority or of any public institution or for the occupation of any officer of such Government, the landlord shall be at liberty to let the building to any tenant or to occupy it himself. Sub -S. (4) of S. 5 provides that when the landlord gives intimation under Sub -S. (1), he shall not let the building to a tenant or occupy it himself before the expiry of the period of 7 days from the receipt of the notice. Sub -S. (5) provides that if the building is required for the purposes mentioned in Sub -S. (3), the landlord shall deliver possession of the building in good tenantable repairs and condition to the authorised officer or to the allottee named by the authorised officer and the tenancy will commence from the date on which the authorised officer received notice from the landlord.

(3.) Thus it will be seen that, on a reading of Sub -Ss. (1) (3), (4) and (5) of S. 3, it is enjoined on the landlord to give notice of vacancy within 7 days after the building becomes vacant. It may be noted that the notice contemplated is to be given after the building becomes vacant and within 7 days from the date after the building becomes vacant. Sub -S. (3) of S. 3 empowers the Government or the authorised officer to intimate to the landlord that the building is required for Governmental purposes within 7 days of the receipt of the notice given by the landlord under Sub -S. (1). The exercise of power under Sub -S. (3) arises only after the receipt of notice under Sub -S. (1), Thus the power to requisition the house arises only after the receipt of the notice of vacancy from the landlord which should be within 7 days after the building becomes vacant. The landlord also is prohibited from occupying it himself or letting it to any one until the expiry of 7 days specified in S. 3(3) of the Act and under Sub -S. (5) the landlord is further required to deliver possession to the authorised officer or to an allottee by him.