LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Life Insurance Corporation of India is the petitioner herein. It acquired the assets of the South India Teachers Union Protection Fund Limited, which included five buildings nearing Door Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in S.I.T.U. colony, Raja Annamalaipuram four of which are residential buildings. At the time of acquisition respondents 2 to 6 who were not the employees of the Corporation, were occupying separate portions of the said residential buildings. Since the Corporation felt considerable need for providing residential houses for the occupation of its staff, it has been persuading respondents 2 to 6 to give vacant possession of the portions of the premises in their occupation. When it could not get possession of the portions from them, it applied to the first respondent to exempt the premises Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 under Sec. 29 of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 from the provisions of Sec. 10(3) of the said Act.

(2.) The two grounds that were urged in support of the application for exemption are : (1) that it is not possible for the Corporation to file an application for eviction under Sec. 10(3) before the Rent Controller on the ground that the premises are required for housing its staff and (2) that the staff of the Corporation who had to be provided with houses are pressing for providing residential accommodation. The said application for exemption filed before the first respondent seems to have been sent to the Accommodation Controller for remarks. The Accommodation Controller had reported that the Corporation can file an application for eviction before the Rent Controller under Sec. 10(3) of the Act and that the hardship that will be caused to the tenants will outweigh the benefits which will accrue to the Corporation by exemption of the buildings. Taking note of this report from the Accommodation Controller, the Government passed an order in G.O.Rt. No. 4319, Home, dated 13th Oct., 1972 rejecting the petitioner's application for exemption on the ground that the Corporation has got a remedy to evict the tenants under the Act and that therefore there is no justification for granting exemption under Sec. 29 of the Act. The said order of the Government, dated 13th Oct., 1972 has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the view taken by the Government that the Corporation has got a remedy of seeking eviction before the Rent Controller under Sec. 10(3) of the Act is erroneous and that in fact having regard to the purpose for which the building is required, the remedy by way of application for eviction before the Rent Controller is not available to the petitioners. Therefore, we have to see whether the petitioner can approach the Rent Controller for eviction of the Respondents 2 to 6 under Sec. 10(3) of the Act. Sec. 10(3)(b) is as follows :