(1.) THIS revision proceeding involves a question of great interest, upon which there are few authorities, the present context of this question being the interpretation of S. 17 (4) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It may be convenient, at the outset itself, to set forth the sub-sections.
(2.) THE facts of the present matter are not in dispute. One K. V. Rajaram (first respondent here) was a tenant of one of the rooms in premises No. 81, C. N. Krishnaswami Road, Triplicane, Madras. The history of this building is as follows. It originally belonged to the estate of a certain Audikesavalu Naidu, and it vested in the Official Trustee, who is the second respondent here, and who is not contesting these proceedings in 1943. Admittedly there are twenty one rooms in the building occupied by ten tenants, all of whom are members of the Brahmin community. The petitioner before the Rent Controller (K. V. Rajaram) was the tenant of rooms nos. 8 and 9. Room No. 1 was in the tenancy of S. Subramaniam, the revision petitioner. Room No. 21 which is the focus of the dispute, is adjacent to room No. 1, with an inter-connecting door. This room No. 21 was subsequently allotted by the Official Trustee to S. Subramaniam (revision petitioner), as additional accommodation for a slight enhancement of rent.
(3.) THE simple case of the petitioner before the Rent Controller was that room No. 21 was an "amenity" within the scope of S. 17 (4), enjoyed in common by all the tenants of this building, and that the allotment of this room to S. Subramaniam (revision petitioner) as additional accommodation, has effectively deprived all the other tenants of the enjoyment of this "amenity". The learned Rent Controller went into the facts of the evidence at some length, and came to the conclusion that this room was an "amenity", to be enjoyed in common by all the tenants of this building; he ordered the landlord (Official Trustee) to restore this room as an "amenity" to all the tenants under S. 17 (4) of the Act. The Official Trustee himself took the matter in appeal to the Second Judge of the Court of Small Causes, functioning as an Appellate Authority under the Act. The judgment in appeal refers to one citation now available upon this particular point, Ullal Dinkar Rao v. Ratna bai, AIR 1958 Mys 77 to which I shall make reference a little later. The order of the Rent Controller was confirmed and the appeal dismissed. The revision proceeding is filed by S. Subramaniam, the tenant to whom the room was allotted as additional accommodation. The Official Trustee, as earlier mentioned, has not participated in this proceeding.