D THOTHADRI IYYENGAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed by the tenant is directed against the Memo No. 804 Accom.A1/92-2 dated 2-11-1992 issued by the respondent No. 1 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises bearing No. 5-3-191, Zeera, Secunderabad (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the schedule premise') within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order and directing the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession to the third respondent landlord.

(2.) When the petitioner was working as Chief Clerk in the office of the Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railways was inducted by the third respondent as tenant of the schedule premise in the year 1968 according to the petitioner, but according to the respondents the petitioner was inducted into the schedule premise not in the year 1968 but in the year 1977. As regards this case is concerned whether the petitioner was inducted as tenant either in the year 1968 or in the year 1977 will not make any difference to decide the controversy which arises for consideration. At this stage itself it is relevant to note that leasing the schedule premise even in the year 1968 or it the year 1977 was admittedly governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (which Act is hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner was inducted by the third respondent landlord as the tenant into the schedule premise without notifying the Authorised Officer about the Vacancy occurred earlier to induction of the petitioner into the schedule premise as tenant. It seems that subsequently on the basis of the report submitted by the Zonal Inspector reporting that the petitioner was unauthorisedly occupying the schedule premise, the Authorised Officer directed the petitioner and the third respondent to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be summarily dispossessed under Section 3(8)(a)(i)of the Act. The third respondent was also directed by the Authorised Officer to show cause as to why action should not be taken to prosecute him for an offence punish able under Section 29 of the Act, for letting out the schedule premise to the petitioner in contravention of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner submitted his reply contending that he was not aware of the provisions of the Act and requesting the Authorised Officer not to take further action in the matter and to permit him to continue as tenant in the same schedule premise as he was a serving Central Government employee. The third respondent landlord also filed his reply to the show cause notice contending that he was not aware of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder when he let out the schedule premise to the petitioner. The Authorised Officer after consideration of the replies submitted by the petitioner and third respondent did not persue the matter further either to evict the petitioner or to proceed against the third respondent for violation of the provisions of the Act. However, the Authorised Officer issued a Memo No. 654/ Accom. A1/80-4 dated 17-7-1980 warning the third respondent not to commit violation of the provisions of the Act in future and directing the third respondent to notify the future vacancies of the schedule premise to the Authorised Officer as required under Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Act.

(3.) The petitioner admittedly retired from service in the year 1981. According to the third respondent as well as the Rent Control authorities, after the retirement the petitioner went to Madras and is staying there permanently after inducting his son into the schedule premise. However, this allegation of the third respondent and the Authorities is denied by the petitioner stating that even after his retirement in the year 1981 he has been staying in the schedule premise.