D.A. DUBIER Vs. THE COLLECTOR OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allottee of a residential building, requisitioned under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act), has filed the present appeal, aggrieved with the order of the learned Judge dismissing in limine his writ petition to quash the order of the Accommodation Controller, releasing the building to the landlady for her own occupation.

(2.) THE appellant filed W.P. No.3899 of 1983 on the following averments: The building bearing Door No. 195, Purasawakkam High Road, Kilpauk, Madras - 10 was allotted to him on 27 -6 -1969 for his residential purpose and he has been residing therein ever since, presently paying Rs.250 as monthly rent In October 1982, he was promoted from the post of Reserve Inspector of Police to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Thanjavur East for one day only. He took charge on 11 -10 -1982 and handed over charge on the same day and proceeded to Mount Abu, Rajasthan for a training, which held him there, till 8 -1 -1983. After completion of the course, he returned to Madras on 21 -3 -1983 and he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Cryptography) Police Radio Branch, Madras. On 8 -3 -1983, he received the order of the Accommodation Controller the first respondent herein directing him to vacate the premises within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof and hand over vacant possession. The order made reference to the fact that the appellant had not replied the first respondent letter dated 16 -12 -1982 and that the landlady's request for release of the house was genuine and had been ordered. The appellant sent a representation dated 10 -2 -1983 to the first respondent, pointing out the fact that his transfer to Thanjavur East was only for one day and that the second respondent's request was not genuine in view of her earlier unsuccessful attempt to evict him from the premises. The first respondent, despite his representation dated 10 -2 -1983, declined to withdraw the order of release of the building in favour of the second respondent and merely gave time till 2 -5 -1983 to vacate the premises. A copy of the petition given by the second respondent for releasing the building had not been furnished to the appellant. The impugned order was violative of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and unreasonable and had to be quashed. A writ of certiorari for the above purpose was sought.

(3.) THIRU S. Sriram Panchu, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge was in error in holding that the appellant, as an allottee, had no locus standi to file the Writ Petition and that Section 3 -A (3) which enables a person aggrieved with the order of release passed in favour of the landlord under Section 3 -A(2) of the Act, to file an appeal, would bring within its ambit an allottee, who could be the only person aggrieved by such an order of release and that therefore, an allottee as an aggrieved person had a right to file an appeal and consequently could also maintain a writ petition. Since an allottee had a right of appeal, he also had a right of hearing in the release proceedings under Section 3 -A(2) . In the instant case a notice dated 16 -12 -82 had in fact been sent to him, but which had not been served on him due to his absence from Madras and the Accommodation Controller, ought to have followed up the matter by issuing a fresh notice and effecting proper service of the notice, before passing the impugned order of release. The learned Counsel also urged, that the release order, having been passed on a wrong basis that the appellant had been transferred out of Madras, when as a matter of fact, he was away on transfer only for one day, could not be sustained, the very substratum of the order, having been proved to be incorrect. The appellant whose right to occupy the premises, could be adversely affected, ought to have been put on notice and ought to have been given a right of hearing. Principle of natural justice had been violated. The learned Counsel placed reliance upon certain decisions which we shall refer to later.