K PADMABHAN Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER PATTUKKOTTAI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the landlord. He filed the eviction petition H. R. C. O. P. No. ll of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller, pattukottai to evict the respondent on the ground that the building is required for his personal occupation and the respondent has constructed a new municipal office complex and the same is ready for occupation. THE building do not require for the use of the respondent any more.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed counter stating that the building has been leased out for non-residential purpose and the same cannot be converted for residential one and further the municipal office is a wing of state of Tamil Nadu and as per the notification, all the Departments of State government are essential services and hence there cannot be any petition for eviction of the respondent. No office complex was constructed for Pattukkottai Municipality and only the godown was constructed and hence the building is required for the occupation of the respondent.

(3.) I carefully considered the contention of both the counsel. Section 10 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is as follows: " (4) No order for eviction shall be passed under sub- section (3)' ; (i) against any tenant who is engaged in any employment or class of employment notified by the Government as an essential service for the purposes of this sub-section, unless the landlord is himself engaged in any employment or class of employment which has been so notified, or (ii) in respect of any building which has been let for use as an educational institution and is actually being used as such, provided that the institution has been recognised by the Government or any authority empowered by them in this behalf so long as such recognition continues. " The courts below rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to seek eviction of the respondent in view of the restriction imposed under Section 10 (4) (i) of the said Act, holding that the Municipality is a Department of the Government as per G. O. Ms. No. 3440 Local Administration dated 27. 10. 1960. The counsel for the respondent relied upon two judgments of this Court Ramamoorthy v. The Post master General, 1993 (I) MLJ (NRC) 13. The above case relates to a place occupied by the post office. Naturally the post office is one of the departments under the Central Government. This may not be of any use for the respondent. The other case relied upon by the counsel for the respondent is reported in Goindarajulu v. Jayaraman, 1976 TLNJ 106. In this case also there is no discussion as to whether the Municipality is a Department under the government. This is also of no use for the respondent.