Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1963 DIGILAW 223 (MAD)

M. v. Narayanan VS The Accommodation Controller, Salem

1963-07-24

K.SRINIVASAN

body1963
Order: This is a petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Accommodation Controller, Salem, to refrain from giving effect to the order of requisition made by him in R.O.C. No. (B) 37325/60, dated 8th January, 1961. The facts are briefly these. The petitioner is the owner of a non-residential building. The previous lessee vacated on the 22nd of December, 1960. The petitioner sent no intimation of the vacancy, as in his view none was required, the monthly rent of the building being Rs. 45. However, on the 30th December, 1960, the Accommodation Controller served a notice upon the petitioner calling upon him to furnish the vacancy report along with certain particulars.. The petitioner immediately sent the report in question by registered post with acknowledgment due and the notice was delivered to the concerned Officer on the 31st December, 1960. An intimation was received by the petitioner from the Accommodation Controller on 9th January, 1961, whereby he purported to inform the petitioner that the building was required for Government purposes and that orders regarding allotment would be issued shortly. Subsequent proceedings also purported to make allotment of the building to the District Khadi Officer, Salem. The short question raised by the petitioner is that the Accommodation Controller had no jurisdiction to requisition the building after the lapse of a period of seven days of the receipt of notice of vacancy which was given to him. Section 3, sub-section (3) which is clear on the point reads: "If, within seven days of the receipt by the authorised officer of a notice under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)..........the authorised officer does not intimate to the landlord in writing that the building is required for the purposes of the State..........the landlord shall be at liberty to let the building to any tenant or to occupy it himself." The sub-section accordingly requires that the authorised Officer should intimate the landlord, within seven days of the receipt of a notice of vacancy, that the building is required for the purposes of the State. Obviously, if he fails to give any such intimation, the landlord is at liberty to let the building to any tenant. It seems to me quite clear that this sub-section, while conferring jurisdiction upon the Authorised Officer to requisition a building) sets a limit to the period during which that jurisdiction can be exercised. Obviously, if he fails to give any such intimation, the landlord is at liberty to let the building to any tenant. It seems to me quite clear that this sub-section, while conferring jurisdiction upon the Authorised Officer to requisition a building) sets a limit to the period during which that jurisdiction can be exercised. The power to requisition lapses on the expiry of seven days of the receipt of a notice of vacancy. On behalf of the respondent, it is contended that, though the registered letter containing the notice of vacancy was received in the Office of the Authorised Officer on 31st December, 1960, it was placed before the Officer only on and January, 1961, and that, therefore, the intimation of the requisition which was given to the petitioner on 9th January, 1961, is within the limit of seven days prescribed by section 3(3). I am not disposed to agree that a delay caused in the office of the Authorised Officer, for, however valid reason it may be, can enlarge the power of that Officer or confer jurisdiction upon him beyond the period specified in the sub-section. That the intimation reached the Authorised Officer on 31st December, 1960, is beyond question. Merely to say that some administrative delay was caused before the officer could proceed to make the order of requisition, is not an answer to the specific provision in the Act. I am satisfied, therefore, that after the expiry of the period specified in the section the Authorised Officer has no jurisdiction to requisition the building. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. There will, however, be no order as to costs. K.S.------ Petition allowed.