HARADEVI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of Satyanarayana Raju J. dismissing an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Kurnool dated 31-12-1953 requisitioning a house alleged to belong to the petitioner and made under Sec. 4 (1) of the Requisition of Buildings (Andhra Area) Ordinance (I of 1953), The petitioner before the learned Judge, who is also the appellant before us, is Haradevi, the wife of Pamandas Sugnaram, a Banker and money-lender residing and carrying on business in Kurnool town. At the relevant date the petitioner and her husband were either the owners or the lessees of four houses in Kurnool town which have been referred to, for the sake of conveniene, as houses A, B, C and D in the judgment of the learned Judge. Houses A and G were rented buildings in which Sugnaram, the lessee, was carrying on his business. The title of the houses B and D stands in the name of Haradevi. On 14-9-1953 the Collector and the Additional Dirstrict Magistrate, Kurnool, the 2nd respondent, requested Sugnaram by a notice, to vacate house B and occupy house A for his residence and business. On 17-9-1953 Sugnaram made a representation to the 2nd respondent with reference to the notice dated 14-9-1953. His objections to complying with the notice were that house B had been the residential house of his family and servants consisting of fifteen members, that he had four horses and carts and large personal belongings wnich could not be accommodated elsewhere and that he had let out house D to a tenant in August 1953 for a long period and that the tenant had also taken possession of the house, thereby making it impossible for him to move into house D which was the only alternative accommodation to be thought of. On 19-11-1953 he Supplemented these objections by a further statement to the effect that he was unable to vacate the house B in view of the recent demise of his mother and the near prospect of his daughter's marriage. On 21-12-1953 an order under Section 4 (1) of the Ordinance signed by the 2nd respondent who was "the competent authority" under the Ordinance, was issued to Sugnaram described as "the landlord" of house B requisitioning the said house for a period of one year. On 27-12-1953 Sugnaram addressed a communication to the 2nd respondent reiterating his objections to the requisition and requesting that he might be allowed to continue in house B. On the same day he sent a petition to the Dy. Chief Minister to the Government of Andhra praying that he might be allowed to continue to live in house B and also referring to the fact that the house stood in the name of his wife. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent, the competent authority under the Ordinance, issued an order under Section 4 (1) that house B was required for a public purpose and that Haradevi, the appellant, who was in possession thereof, should occupy houses A and G. She was described in the order as "the landlady" of the house and was directed to deliver vacant possession thereof to the Special Engineer, P. W. D , Kurnool, on 3-1-1954. This order under Section 4 (1) of the Ordinance requisitioning the house B was served on the appellant on the evening of 31-12-1953 and the 2nd respondent took possession of the house on behalf of the Government on the morning of 3-1-1954.

(2.) The validity of this order of requisition made by the 2nd respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Ordinance is impugned in these proceedings. The learned Judge held that the appellant was disentitled to relief by reason of her silence and inaction at the time when the requisitioning authority purported to deal with her husband as the owner of house B. The learned Judge observed as follows : "When the petitioner's husband was dealing with the Government as the owner of house B, she stood by and allowed the Government to deal with him as the owner, and it is not now open to her to contend that she is the owner of the premises and that her rights have been affected in the manner stated in the petition."

(3.) It is possible that though the ostensible title stood in the name of the Appellant, her husband might have had a beneficial interest in the house, It is also possible that as the appellant's husband was living in the house along with her, the requisitioning authority dealt with the husband as if he werw the owner of the house. Later on, the competent authority realised that the title to the house stood in the name of the appellant and therefore issued the order of requisition dated 31-12-1953 to the appellant treating her as the landlady in possession of the house. When the appellant seeks to question the validity of the order of requisition issued to her on the footing that she was the owner of the bouse, her objections caanot be over-ruled on the ground that she had not put forward her title at a time when the Government was corresponding with her husband with a view to onthe into an arrangement enabling the Government or its Officers to occupy the house Ia the notice issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Ordinance, the appellant alone is recognized as the "landlady having poisesion" of the house. Under Section 4(1) of the Ordinance the order of the compotent authority requisitioning a house has to be served on the "landlord". In Section 2 (g) of the Ordinance "landlord" is given the same meaning as in the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 (XXV of 1949) In Section 2 (3) of that Act "landlord" is defined as a person who would receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the building was let to a tenant.