M. CHINNIAH SERVAI Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other suitable writ or order or directions in the nature of writ to quash the proceedings of the State of Madras culminating in their order G.O. Ms. No. 2621, Home, dated 17th September, 1958. In and by that order the Government, in purported exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, exempted premises No. 15, Coral Merchant Street, George Town, Madras, from the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act.

(2.) THE facts which led up to this petition are as follows : The second respondent in the petition, one Rajathi Animal, purchased premises Nos. 14 and 15, Coral Merchant Street for a sum of about Rs. 23,000 by a deed of sale, dated 12th March, 1955. Of these two, No. 14 appears to be a cowshed and we are not concerned with it in this petition. No. 15 was in the occupation of the petitioner, Chinniah Servai who was residing in a portion of the premises and running a boarding and lodging house. Rajathi Animal filed an application before the House Rent Controller, Madras H.R.C. No. 2462 of 1955 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that she required the premises bonafide for her residential purposes and that she had no other house of her own in the City of Madras. The petition was contested on two grounds, namely, (1) that the premises were not required bona fide and (2) that the premises were used for a non -residential purpose. The House Rent Controller held that the building in question was a residential building and it was required bona fide by the second respondent, who will hereafter be referred to as the respondent. Hence he passed an order for eviction. The petitioner before us filed an appeal against this order, H.R.A. No. 88 of 1956. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal agreeing with the Rent Controller that the building was a residential one and that it was required bona fide by the petitioner for her own occupation. The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition No. 1370 of 1956, against this order to this Court. The petition was allowed by Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., who set aside the orders of the two Tribunals below and dismissed the respondent's application for eviction. The learned Judge agreed with the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Tribunal that the respondent did require the premises bona fide for her residential purposes but held that the premises were let and were being used for non -residential purposes, namely, running a lodging house and the mere fact that the petitioner lived in a portion of the premises with his family for the purpose of running the lodging house would not convert the premises into a residential one. Thereupon the respondent filed a petition before the Government praying that the said premises No. 15, Coral Merchant Street, Madras, may be exempted from the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. The respondent referred to certain statements made by the petitioner before us in prior proceedings for eviction setting up a case that the building in question was residential in character. She reiterated that she required the building bona fide for her own residential purposes. Notice of this petition was given to the petitioner before us who made his own representation. Referring to the contradictory statements made by him at different stages the petitioner said that it was true that he had been taking all possible defences open to him under the law to ward off eviction and he could do nothing else than to meet each case as and when it arose. He submitted that no case was made out for exemption. The Government on a consideration of both the respondent's petition and the petitioner's statement passed the following order:

(3.) SECTION 13 of the Act runs thus: