JAGANMOHAN REDDY Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd Appellant, who was admittedly a tenant of the 3rd respondent-land lady, was in occupation of the building bearing No. 3 6-766, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. The 1st appellant claims to be the joint tenant along with the 2nd appellant. On 12 6-19SO, a notice bearing No. 918/ Accom CI/80-2, was issued to the 1st appellant by the Authorised Officer, the 1st respondent herein, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Evictiou) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") slating that he was occupying the premises in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act and calling upon him to show cause why he should not be summarily dispossessed under Section 3 (8) (a) of the Act. In response to the said notice, the first appellant submitted his representation claiming that he was a Government servant working in the Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and residing in the said building along with his brother, Narayan Pfasad Shukia, (the 2nd appellant). It is his case that the 2nd appellant "brought up me as a guardian after the sudden demise of my father in distress condition since 196l onwards and paying a rent of Rs. 350/- per month regularly." He claimed that he was not in unauthorised occupation of the building and that, in any event, he, being a Government servant, was entitled to occupy the building as per the accommodation rules. By an order dated 17-2-1981, this building was allotted for locating the office of the Tabsildar, Mushirabad Taluk, Hyderabad; but that office was not shifted to that building on the ground that it was not suitable for locating the office. By another order dated 9 9-1981, the Authorised Officer allotted the building to the Director of Treasuries and Account Hyderabad, for locating the Pension Payment Office and, pursuant to this order of allotment, the appellants were sought to be summarily dispossessed under Section 3 (8) (a) of the Act. It is this order of the Authorised Officer that was called in question in the writ petition.

(2.) The appellants contend that, inasmuch as there was never any vacancy, they were under no obligation to give any notice of vacancy and as such they cannot be treated as unauthorised, occupants and liable to be evicted under Section 3 (8) of the Act- They alternatively contended that the order of allotment is bad for the reason that the residential building is allotted for locating an office, which is a non-residential purpose. unless a residential building is converted into a non-residential building under Sec. 18 of the Act, the order of allotment itself cannot be sustained and as such, they cannot be evicted. Lastly, it was contended that the order of eviction cannot be passed mechanically. The authorities ought to have taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances and as the building was a residential building, it could not be allotted for a non-residential purpose and even if the appellants were in unauthorised occupation, they should not be evicted on the mere ground that, because no notice of vacancy was given, the discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

(3.) Our learned brother, Choudary, J , agreed with the contention that, under Section 3 (8) (a) of the Act, it is not obligatory on the part of the Authorised Officer to summarily dispossess a parson merely because he is found to be in uauthorised occupation. However, he hold that, since the building had been allotted for location of the office of the Tahsilda and later on to the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the allotment orders would clearly show that the building in question is needed for the statutory purposes of the Act and the fulfilment of those purposes would clearly justify the summary eviction of the appellants. He then considered the contention that the allotment orders themselves should ba disregarded because they are bad. He rejected this contention holding that the Authorised Officer can make successive orders of allotment and he also observed that the question of coaversion of a residential building into a non-residential building would not arise in this case for the reason that, after the Government became a tenant under Section 3 (6) of the Act, it may be occupied by any officer of the Stale or Central Government specified in sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. In that view of the matter, he dismissed the writ petition.