H. SHIVA RAO Vs. THE COLLECTOR OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings of the Collector of Madras, dated the 1st October, 1947, and to quash his order which runs thus:

(2.) THE house in question was comprised in the estate of one Rao Bahadur H. Narayana Rao who died leaving behind him a will under which the petitioner was appointed executor. It is alleged in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the application that from about the end of 1942, the premises were occupied by Successive officers of Government or by Government institutions. On the 5th February, 1947, one Rao Bahadur R. Madhavachari who had been in occupation of the house vacated it, and the house was assigned to the Hon'ble Mr. B. Venkata -ratnam, minister to the Government of Madras, with effect from the 5th February, 1947. The order itself was passed on the 8th. In accordance with that order, the Hon'ble Mr. Venkataratnam occupied the premises from the 8th February, 1947, and vacated the same on the 25th March, 1947. Though Mr. Venkataratnam vacated the premises, it appears that the petitioner did not obtain vacant possession of the house. One Anjayya, editor of a Telugu weekly, came to occupy the pre -mises from about the 4th April, 1947. The petitioner attempted to obtain possession of the house for the use of the widow of the late Narayana Rao, the testator; but his attempt was not successful. On the 8th August, 1947, the Collector of Madras required the petitioner to furnish certain particulars regarding the house, and when the petitioner had complied with the request, the Collector passed an order on the 27th August, 1947, purporting to allot the house to the Educational Department for use as a hostel. The petitioner protested against the action of the Collector, but he did not get any relief. In supersession of the order of the 27th August, the Collector of Madras passed the order set out above on the 1st October, 1947. It is this last order that the petitioner seeks this Court to quash.

(3.) UNDER Section 3(1) every landlord has to give notice in writing to the Con -troller within seven days after his building becomes vacant that it has so fallen vacant. The Controller, according to Section 2(2) of the Act, is the "person appointed to perform the functions of a Controller under this Act." It has been brought to our notice that in the City of Madras the Personal Assistant to the Collector of Madras is the person so appointed by G.O. No. 3741 dated 30th September, 1946. Sub -section (2) of Section 3 runs thus: