R. CHELLAMMAL AND ORS. Vs. ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the respondent: Accommodation Controller, Coimbatore, dated 4th July, 1964 and 8th July, 1964. The prior facts necessary for the consideration of this writ petition are briefly the following: The premises bearing No. 9/48, Cross Cut Road, Coimbatore belonged to Chellammal, the 1st petitioner. Subsequently she sold it to petitioner 2 who has been impleaded as her legal representative pending the writ petition. The 1st petitioner occupied a portion of the above building for her residence, and in the other portion, she was carrying on a business which is said to be the manufacture of Kesavardani Hair Oil products. Finding that the remaining portion of the building was not sufficient for the aforesaid business, she took another building on rent sometime ago, and let out the portion in or about 1961, by private arrangement, for the use of the Village Industries Office. As the landlord of the premises which she had taken on rent for running her Kesavardani Products business, was pressing her to vacate, she was able to persuade the Village Industries Officer to vacate the other part of her own building on 1st May, 1964, and she proposed to shift her Kesavardani Products business to the remaining portion in the aforesaid premises. She partly removed the stock of her business to her premises No. 9/48, Cross Cut Road. However on 16th June, 1964 she wrote to the Accommodation Controller giving him notice of the vacancy and stating the above facts. But it was not a formal notice of the vacancy. The Accommodation Controller insisted by a communication sent on 21st June, 1964, that a formal notice of vacancy should be given, and that she should await the statutory period of seven days, for the Accommodation Controller to make an allotment of the remaining portion. The petitioner however informed the Accommodation Controller that she was not legally bound to give the statutory notice of vacancy under Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Madras (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. But the Accommodation Controller did not agree and sent the communications which is now impugned on 4th July, 1964, telling her that the premises in question were required for Government purposes, that orders regarding allotment would be issued shortly, and that in the meantime the premises should not be let out to any other person but should be handed over to the allottee or the person authorised by the Accommodation Controller. On 8th July, 1964, the Accommodation Controller gave notice that she would not be given permission to occupy the premises, and should hand over the key of the premises to the Accommodation Controller, within 48 hours under penalty of prosecution.

(2.) THE petitioner urges in the affidavit to the present petition that the order of the Accommodation Controller does not take into account the fact that the petitioner is also in possession of a part of the premises for her own residence, that the building itself satisfies the requirements of a residential building, and that in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to rely upon Section 3, Sub -section (10) Clause (c) of the aforesaid Act, as exempting her from giving notice under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. The respondent -Accommodation Controller in the counter -affidavit states that the portion of the building let out to the Village Industries Office is an independent portion, with a separate entrance from the main road, separate amenities like flush -out, overhead tank and water supply, etc., that there are a number of Government servants who have applied for accommodation in the town of Coimbatore, and who are in the waiting list, and that the premises could not be released to the petitioner and should be allotted under the provisions of the Madras Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for Government purposes.

(3.) THE argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner (Sri Ramamurthy Ayyar) is based upon the specific provisions in Section 3(10)(c) of the Act which is as follows: