J R METHA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an employee of M/s Kesoram Cement Company Ltd., has occupied a portion of the building bearing No. 1-4-70 situated at Masab Tank, Hyderabad in July or August, 1972. He is paying a sum of Rs. 150/- per month to hi employer, the company, who has taken the entire building on a rent of Rs. 300/- per mensem in May 1967 from the owner Seth Radhakiishna Motilal, father of the 3rd respondent herein Previous to the occupation of the portion of the building by the writ petitioner it was occupied by one Chanak, another employee of M/s. Kesoram Cement Company Ltd. On the information that Chanak was in unauthorised occupation of the premises, a notice under section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) was issued by the 2nd respondent, i e. Estate Officer, Hyderabad catling upon him to show cause why he should not be evicted from the premises. By the the time the notice was sought to be served, the wait petitioner was in occupation of the premises.

(2.) Therefc re, it was served on him. In reply to the notice, the petitioner, by his letter dated 31-8-1972, represented that the building was in the occupation of his employer, M/s. kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Limited, Calcutta' for the last 6 years, that he had been in its occupation from July or August 1972 and that he did not contravene any of the provisions of the Act. The 3rd respondent had replied that the portions in the house were let out by his lats father and he was not aware of the provisions of the Act. Not accepting the plea raised by the petitioner, the Estate Officer, Hyderabad has, by his notice dated 18 10-1972, directed the petitioner to vacate the premises voluntarily and peacefully and hand over its possession either to 4th respondent, the allottee, or to him and also informed him that otherwise he would be summarily dispossessed from the said premises at 10-30 A. M on 26-10-1972 by the Special Deputy Tahsildar. The petitioner approached this Court and obtained interim stay of eviction on 25-10-1972 and he is continuing in that premises by virtue of that interim order. Mr. R. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that there was no vacancy of the building either in July or August 1972 as contemplated by section 3 of the Act, that the employer, M/s. Kesoram Cement Company Ltd , who is the tessee, still retains possession of the building, that there is no contractual relationship between the petitioner and the landlord, the 3rd respondent and that he cannot be evieted as long as bis employer continues to be the lessee of the entire building and therefore, the impugned notices are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.

(3.) This claim of the petitioner's opposed by Mr. Ramakrishna representing the Principal Government Pleader contending inter alia that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the premises as his employer and the owner have failed to notify the vacancy the moment a premises fell vacant and there is no merit in this writ petition. Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act requires every landlord to give notice of the vacancy in writing to the authorised officer within ten days after the building becomes vacant. The vacancy t may occur either by the landlord ceasing to occupy it, or by the termination of a tenancy, or by the eviction of the tenant or by release from requisition or otherwise. The use of the word 'shall leaves no doubt in my mind that the provisions of section 3 (1) (a) are mandatory. The landlord has a statutory duty and obligation to notify the vacancy to the authorised officer. There are no exceptions to this mandatory rule.