S M D FIZUDDIN Vs. ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are not in dispute. Originally, the allotment of the premises in question was made under S.3 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act) in favour of one Abdul Samad. Admittedly, the appellant's father Md. Basheerduddin, who was in Government employment came to occupy these premises as a result of the allotment being transferred to his name on 7-7-1979 (sic). Mr. Basheeruddin died on 1-3-1972. The appellant is the son of Md. Basheeruddin. Admittedly, he was not in Government employment on the date on which his father died. Even otherwise, automatically he would not be entitled to occupy the premises unless there is an order of allotment in his favour. It is stated before us that on a humanitarian ground, being the son of a Government servant, who died in harness, the appellant was given Government employment on 12-4-1973. The appellant has, however, been in continuous occupation of the premises in question without any allotment in his favour. The premises belongs to a trust and, though at one stage on a cursory reading of a part of the Wakf deed which referred to the trust being a trust for educational and charitable purposes, it was canvassed on behalf of the appellant that the trust was a public trust, on a careful reading of the whole of the document it is obvious that the Wakf is a private trust for the benefit of certain individuals and their descendants till the line of descendants of the beneficiaries under the Wakf deed become extinct.

(2.) A notice was issued by the Collector of Madras, who is also the Accommodation Controller, requiring the appellant to vacate and hand over possession of the premises in question to the Accommodation Inspector No. III, failing which possession of the premises was to be recovered forcibly under S.3(9) of the Rent Control Act. The appellant was also given notice that, if free access to the premises is not afforded, entry to the premises would be gained by breaking open the lock, door and bolt or by taking such action as may be necessary and persons if any residing in the premises would be physically dispossessed.

(3.) This notice was challenged by the appellant by a writ petition in this court. The case of the appellant was :