Judgment This is a petition by the plaintiff against the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif, Salem, dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs.452 being the arrears of rent from defendants 1 and 2, two refugees from Pakistan, as against the State of Madras impleaded as the third defendant. The suit was decreed only against the 1st and 2nd defendant. The facts are briefly these. The building in question appears to have been requisitioned in 1949 under section 3(2) of Madras Act XXV of 1949. According to orders of the Accommodation controller, Exhibits A-1 to A-5, they were allotted to Government Officials in turn the last order, dated 9th March, 1951, being allotment to the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch. Then it would appear that under the order of the Collector of Salem, this building was allotted to two families of refugees from Pakistan whom the Tahsildar, Salem, put into possession. This is apparent from the Collector’s order, Exhibit A-3, dated 14th November, 1949. As these refugees defaulted in paying rents, the plaintiff instituted proceedings to evict them and obtained a decree against them but by then they had vacated the premises. The plaintiff did not know where they had gone. Afterwards the plaintiff filed the present suit. There can be no doubt that the Government is the statutory tenant of the landlord under section 3 (2) of the Act, and that in a case of this kind the landlord can look to the Government for payment of rents which is in law the obligation of the tenant. The suit was opposed by the Government on two grounds. The first ground which commended itself to the District Munsif was a technical one, that in this case the allotment was made to the refugees by the Collector and not by the Revenue Divisional Officer who was the Accommodation Controller to whom powers under section 3 (2) of the Act had been delegated. The learned District Munsif held that as allotment to the refugees was not made by the Revenue Divisional Officer but by the District Collector, the allotment was not one envisaged under Madras Act XXV of 1949, and therefore, no statutory tenancy was created which would make the Government liable for the rents. I am unable to accept this technical position relied on by the Government for evasion of their statutory liability. I am unable to accept this technical position relied on by the Government for evasion of their statutory liability. This is a case in which the Accommodation Controller at the worst failed to pass a formal order of allotment in compliance with the order of the Collector directing the refugees to be given this building. I am unable to see how the Government can rely on an error or omission by one of its own officer to defeat legal obligations as a statutory tenant to pay the landlord the arrears of rents during the period of tenancy. The same point was sought to be raised in another way in Mrs. B. Gervase, In re1. That was a case in which the Collector himself requisitioned a house and allotted it for location of a police station. The untenable position taken on behalf of the landlord, who was charged under section 188, Indian Penal Code, was that the requisition was invalid as it was made by the Collector and not by the Accommodation Controller. In the case before me I have no hesitation in holding that the Government cannot evade its liability as a statutory tenant on this technical point. The second point raised before the learned District Munsif was that the plaintiff landlord was estopped from filing this suit against the Government as a tenant because he instituted eviction proceedings against the refugees as tenants. The learned District Munsif rightly held that there was no question of estoppel arising in this case. It is true that the landlord could not file a suit to evict the Government as a statutory tenant under section 7 of the Act. It would have been a more appropriate remedy if the landlord had claimed the rents due from the Government and asked the Government to evict the refugees who had defaulted in the payment of rents. I am unable to see how resort to an inappropriate remedy by the landlord can relieve the Government of its liability to pay the rents as a statutory tenant under the Act. Mr. Raghavan in fact urges that the suit filed by the landlord, the plaintiff, for eviction really helped the Government in that it prevented the arrears of rent from accumulating. No estoppel arises which can stand in the way barring the landlord’s right to recover the rents from the Government as a statutory tenant. Mr. Raghavan in fact urges that the suit filed by the landlord, the plaintiff, for eviction really helped the Government in that it prevented the arrears of rent from accumulating. No estoppel arises which can stand in the way barring the landlord’s right to recover the rents from the Government as a statutory tenant. This Petition is allowed with costs throughout. K.C. ----- Petition allowed.