P. BALAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two connected appeals referred for disposal by a Full Bench as the correctness of the decision in State of Madras v. Amar Singh, 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 necessary for him to gave 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 Sections 3(3) and (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. This order of allotment was successfully contested. Ramakrishna, 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 prescuted for conversion of the building from a residential to a non-residential purpose. The conversation 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 other case, the vacancy arose on 31st January, 1963. Since the owner did not notify the vacancy as required by Section 5, but occupied the same he was prosecuted on 22nd May, 1963 convicted and fined. On 11th August, 1964 a notice was issued under Section 3(9) of the Act, for summary dispossession. The petition was to quash his order but it was dismissed on the ground that it was belated.