MURALIDHAR LOHIA DIED Vs. NORTH MADRAS MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 10. 7. 1990 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing W. P. No. 9055 of 1987 in which the petitioner/ appellant has sought for quashing G. O. Ms. No. 1824, dated 29. 7. 1987, passed in exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 29 of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act1960 (hereinafter referred to as' the Act' ), exempting the premises bearing Door No. 444, Tiruvottiyur High Road, Madras 600 021 in the occupation of the petitioner/ appellant from all the provisions of the Act.

(2.) LEARNED single Judge has upheld the order of the State government on the grounds that the exercise of power by the State Government is reasonable, that it does not suffer from any arbitrariness that the landlord has no remedy under the Act, and, therefore, the exemption, granted does not call for interference.

(3.) POINT 1: Sec. 21 of the Act reads thus: "no residential building shall be converted into a non- residential building except with the permission in writing of the controller. " It places an embargo on the use of residential building for non-residential purposes without the written permission of the Controller. In unmistakable terms, Sec. 21 of the Act provides that no residential building shall be converted into a non-residential building, except with the permission in writing of the controller. Therefore, a person seeking conversion of the residential building into a non-residential building, should be in occupation of the residential building for converting it into a non-residential building. It is not possible for the landlord to seek conversion of the residential building into a nonresidential building, as long as the building continues to be in the occupation of the tenant, who uses it for residential purposes. In the event permission to convert a residential building in question into a nonresidential building is granted it cannot be continued to be used as residential building and such act would result in contravention of the provisions of the act, and the landlord and the tenant would be liable to be punished under sec. 33 (l) of the Act. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that Sec. 21 of the act can be availed of by the landlord as long as the residential building in question continues to be in the occupation of the tenant.