MD. SADUDDIN SAMDANI Vs. STATE (ACCOMMODATION DEPUTY TAHSILDAR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -landlord was convicted under Section 3(5) and Section 17(1) read with sections of the Madras Buildings (Lease and rent) and Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act' and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 under each count (Rs. 500 in all), by the Chief presidency Magistrate, Madras. The Premises No. 6, Jani Khan Street, 1stlane, Royapettah, Madras, the monthly rent of which was Rs. 65 and this building was subject to the provisions of the Act. This building was occupied by a private tenant and it was vacated on 7th October, 1966. Under Section 3 of the Act, the owner I required to intimate the accommodation Controller the vacancy of the building whenever there is any, within seven days. Accordingly, the appellant informed the Accommodation Controller about the vacancy under a letter dated 13th October, 1966, which was within seven days. In the same letter, he requested for release of the said premises to enable him to occupy the same as he found it difficult to live with other members of his family in another house owned by the family. On receipt of this letter the attached to the Accommodation Controller's office (P.W.2) inspected the premises on 18th October, 1966 and made a report to the Accommodation Controller wrote to the appellant on 21st October, 1966, rejecting informing him that it should not be let out to any body else. The said order also requires that the appellant should hand over possession of the house to the person authorised by the Accommodation Controller. On 24th October 1966, the Accommodation Controller allotted the house to one Shanmughan, Assistant Professor, English, Teacher's College, Saidapet (P.W.1). The appellant told him that he had preferred an appeal against the order of the Accommodation Controller and that he would not handover possession to him. P.W.1 accordingly informed the Accommodation Controller by his letter dated 26th October 1966. In the meanwhile, the appellant appealed to the Government against the order of the Accommodation Controller -vide, Exhibit D -6. On receipt of the report from P.W.1 the Controller wrote to the appellant on 27th October, 1966 he should hand over possession immediately on receipt of his reference failing which Act. On 29th October, 1966, as per the instructions of the Controller forcible possession of the premises was taken and the allottee, namely, P.W 1 was asked to take possession of the premises. It was also noted that at the time of taking possession, the premises required the following repairs; (i) re -wiring to the premises; (ii) repairs to the flooring in the kitchen; and (iii) repairs to windows and ventilators.

(2.) ON the appeal petition filed by the appellant to the Government, the Government had passed an order on 7th November, 1966, requesting the Accommodation Controller not to proceed with the allotment of the premises pending orders on the said petition. On the same appeal, final orders were passed on 25th February, 1967, dismissing the appeal petition stating that the Government did not find any reason to reconsider the orders issued by the Accommodation Controller.

(3.) ON the report of the Accommodation Inspector that the house was not in a tenantable condition and that P.W. 1 could not occupy the house, the Accommodation Controller filed a petition against the appellant before the rent Controller Act praying for restoration of the amenities; and against the order of the Rent Controller the appeal by the appellant is said to be still pending The Accommodation Controller also filed a complaint before the Court against the appellant for having failed to deliver possession of the building in a tenable conditions for having officer or to the allottee named by the authorised officer and also for having cut off the amenities without just or sufficient cause.