Judgment :- 1. In this writ petition Mr. S. Easwara Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges an order issued by the Tahsildar and Accommodation Controller, Ernakulam, under Ex. P-3, dated 11th May 1962. 2. There is an unfortunate controversy in these proceedings regarding the allotment of the building, namely, No. XV/8990 in favour of the 2nd respondent in these proceedings by the Accommodation Controller, by his order dated 26th April 1962. The first respondent is the Accommodation Controller, Ernakulam, and the 2nd respondent is Shri John Chandy, Chief Research Officer (Statistics) Coir Board, Ernakulam, in whose favour allotment of the premises in question has been made by the 1st respondent. 3. According to the petitioner there was an original allotment of this house in favour of one Shri M. Joseph, Deputy Superintendent of Census Operations. In fact, the claim made by the petitioner, who is an Advocate of this Court, is that the allotment itself in favour of Shri Joseph, was for and on behalf of himself and Shri Joseph. That is, according to the petitioner ho was a co-tenant of the house at the material time. There is no controversy that Shri Joseph, expecting a transfer from this area, intimated the Accommodation Controller by his notice, dated 19th April 1962 that the particular building will fall vacant on or about 26th April 1962. At this stage it may be mentioned that the petitioner appears to claim that he has also made an application for allotment of the said house in his favour as early as 7th March 1962, evidenced by Ext. P-1. In the said application the petitioner states that the particular house in question is occupied by Mr. M. Joseph, Deputy Superintendent of Census Operations, Ernakulam as well as the petitioner from the date of allotment by the Accommodation Controller of the same to Shri Joseph. The petitioner also states in Ex. P-1 that since Shri Joseph may be transferred to Trivandrum very soon, the petitioner being the co-occupant of the said house from the date of allotment, the house may be allotted to him in his name from the date of the vacancy notice given by Shri Joseph. That application, according to the petitioner, is stated to have been made on 7th March 1962, and is evidenced by Ex. P-1. 4. That application, according to the petitioner, is stated to have been made on 7th March 1962, and is evidenced by Ex. P-1. 4. At this stage it has to be stated that originally a controversy has been raised by the respondents regarding the making of an application by the petitioner under Ex. P-1, dated 7th March 1962. But the fact that the petitioner did make an application evidenced by Ext. P-1, dated 7th March 1962, is placed beyond controversy by the learned Government Pleader appearing in these proceedings, by producing the inward register maintained in respect of receipt of such applications by the Accommodation Controller. Therefore, this Court will have now to proceed on the basis that the petitioner has made an application as early as 7th March 1962 for allotment of the house in question. As to whether the claim made by the petitioner in the said application that he is a co-tenant along with Shri Joseph, or whether he continues to be in possession of the house as a co-occupant, are matters which are not accepted by the respondents and there is controversy on those aspects. 5. The 2nd respondent, and there is no controversy, has also made an application as early as 24th January 1962 for allotment of the house in question as and when it becomes vacant. The actual vacancy in respect of the house occurred on 26th April 1962, and the allotment itself has been made by the 1st respondent of the said house in favour of the 2nd respondent on that day. 6. In the meanwhile it will be seen that by the communication, dated 17th April 1962, evidenced by Ex. P-2, the petitioner, sends another letter to the Accommodation Controller, in which the petitioner after setting out his case, states that he and Shri M. Joseph, Deputy Superintendent of Census Operations were together occupying the house and that the house itself was taken for the use of both of them. The petitioner also states that the rent of the house was being shared by them and the common expenses also were shared by them. Ultimately the petitioner states that Shri Joseph has been transferred to Trivandrum from Ernakulam and that he is in exclusive possession of the house from 6th January 1961, i. e., the date of the original allotment. The petitioner also states that the rent of the house was being shared by them and the common expenses also were shared by them. Ultimately the petitioner states that Shri Joseph has been transferred to Trivandrum from Ernakulam and that he is in exclusive possession of the house from 6th January 1961, i. e., the date of the original allotment. The petitioner then refers to the application that appears to have been made by the 2nd respondent and it is stated that that gentleman is residing in another house in Ernakulam. The petitioner also refers to other matters which are not really necessary to be adverted to in this writ petition. Finally in Ex. P-2 the petitioner winds up with the request that as the house in question is in his occupation and has not fallen vacant, any vacancy notice that may be given by Shri Joseph cannot under law be a valid vacancy notice as the building has not fallen vacant. He also states that it cannot and will not have any legal effect. 7. I do not think that it is within the jurisdiction of either the Accommodation Controller, or of this Court in these proceedings, to enter into and adjudicate upon the controversy raised by the petitioner regarding the original allotment that is stated to have been made in favour of Shri Joseph and himself and his claim to continue in occupation of the house as a co-tenant, more especially in view of the affidavit that has been filed in this Court by the original tenant Shri Joseph himself. The only point to be noted in that affidavit filed by Shri Joseph is that he does not accept the plea of the petitioner that the house was taken for the use and occupation of both the petitioner and himself and that the house was occupied by them as joint tenants. Nor does Shri Joseph accept the plea of the petitioner that himself and the petitioner were jointly sharing the common expenses and the rent. I am only referring to these aspects for the limited purpose to show that the claim made by the petitioner cannot certainly be adjudicated in these proceedings. 8. Nor does Shri Joseph accept the plea of the petitioner that himself and the petitioner were jointly sharing the common expenses and the rent. I am only referring to these aspects for the limited purpose to show that the claim made by the petitioner cannot certainly be adjudicated in these proceedings. 8. Therefore, the position now is that the petitioner has made an application for allotment of the house in question under Ex P-1, dated 7th March 1962, and the 2nd respondent has also made an application for allotment of the particular house to him on 24th January 1962. 9. So far as the records go, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the claims of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent inter se have been considered by the Accommodation Controller before he decided to allot the permises in favour of the 2nd respondent. It is really on the basis of the allotment made in favour of the 2nd respondent that the Tahsildar has issued the notice Ex. P-3 to the petitioner on 11th May 1962 on the ground that the petitioner has been illegally occupying the premises in question without the permission of the Accommodation Controller, and asking the petitioner to vacate the house within the period mentioned therein. There is also a threat to the effect that if the petitioner does not comply with the said notice, he will be summarily dispossessed under sub-section 7 (a) of S.4 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. That is why the petitioner seeks the assistance of this Court to stay operation of that order. 10. Therefore, the main grievance of the petitioner ultimately comes to this, namely, that his claim for this house being allotted in his favour has not been properly considered by the authority concerned. I have already indicated that the original stand that was taken by the Accommodation Controller was that the petitioner had not made an application for the allotment of the house to him. If that stand is accepted and has been established, then there is no question of the Accommodation Controller having failed in the discharge of his duty in considering any application of the petitioner, because there was no such application. But the position does stand altered in view of the now accepted position, namely, that the petitioner has made an application under Ex. P-1. 11. But the position does stand altered in view of the now accepted position, namely, that the petitioner has made an application under Ex. P-1. 11. Under S.4 (1) (a) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959, Act 16 of 1959, as amended, the material part that is to be noted is to the effect that every tenant shall, within 15 days of his vacating a building occupied by him, give notice of the same in writing to the Accommodation Controller. In the earlier part of S.4 (1) (a) there is also an obligation on the part of every landlord, in the circumstances mentioned therein, to give intimation to the Accommodation Controller. Under sub-section (3) of S.4, provision is made to the effect that if within 15 days of the receipt by the Accommodation Controller of a notice under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2), the Accommodation Controller does not intimate to the landlord in writing that the building is required for the purposes of the State or the Central Government or of any local authority or of any public institution or for the occupation of any officer of such Government, or local authority, or for the occupation of such class of non-officials as may be prescribed having due regard to the importance of their service to society, the landlord shall be at liberty to let the building to any tenant or to occupy it himself. 12. In this case, Mr. S. Easwara Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner no doubt urged that there has been no strict compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of S.4 of the Act, excepting passing an order of allotment of the premises in question in favour of the 2nd respondent and informing the landlady in this case, according to learned counsel, there has been no compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of S.4. In this connection Mr. Easwara Iyer, no doubt placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court reported in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Krishnamoorthi AIR. 1961 Madras 475. In this connection Mr. Easwara Iyer, no doubt placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court reported in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Krishnamoorthi AIR. 1961 Madras 475. I do not propose to express any opinion one way or the other and consider the various principles that have no doubt been referred to by the Madras High Court in that judgment, because the grievance about non-compliance of sub-section (3) of S.4, in my opinion can be properly entertained and adjudicated upon by this Court not at the instance of persons like the petitioner, but really by an owner of property. And it is in such a case that the learned judges of the Madras High Court had to consider in the decision referred to above. But I am satisfied in this case that in substance there has been compliance with the provisions of subsection (3) of S.4 of the Act when the Accommodation Controller has categorically stated in the notice sent by him to the landlady that the building has been allotted to the 2nd respondent. As to whether the allotment in favour of the 2nd respondent is legal or not is a matter which does not arise for consideration under sub-section (3) of S.4. No doubt, in this connection Mr. Easwara Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to clause (g) of sub-section (6) of S.4 in support of his contention. But, as I mentioned earlier, I do not propose to go into those aspects in this writ petition at any. 13. Therefore, I must proceed on the basis, and especially when the grievance is not by the landlady, who it is also seen is not a party to these proceedings, that there has been in substance, compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of S.4 of the Act; 14. Then the question is whether the allotment of the house in question in favour of the 2nd respondent is proper. So far as that is concerned, evidently the Accommodation Controller seems to have proceeded on the basis that the 2nd respondent has to be considered to be an officer of the Central Government and therefore it is not necessary for him to consider any other claims. So far as that is concerned, evidently the Accommodation Controller seems to have proceeded on the basis that the 2nd respondent has to be considered to be an officer of the Central Government and therefore it is not necessary for him to consider any other claims. But now the position is accepted that the 2nd respondent does not come under any of the categories mentioned in sub-section (3) of S.4 excepting under "such class of non-officials as may be prescribed having regard to the importance of their service to society." The rules regarding allotment are also to be found in R.24 of the rules framed under the statute. It is also seen that having reference to the provisions of rule (3) of the rules, the Accommodation Controller has certainly to conform to the particular procedure indicated herein the matter of deciding claims that may be placed before him. 15. Therefore, the position ultimately is that inasmuch as the 2nd respondent is also to be considered to have made an application for allotment of the house in question, under that class of non-officials to whom the house may be allotted, having due regard to the importance of their service to society, and inasmuch as the petitioner also can come only under that class, the individual claims of both the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent will have to be properly considered by the Accommodation Controller before he decides to make the allotment in favour of one or the other. Inasmuch as this has not been done, the order of allotment made in favour of the 2nd respondent on 26th April 1962 as well as the order under attack, namely, Ex. P-3 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises, will have both to be set aside. Inasmuch as this has not been done, the order of allotment made in favour of the 2nd respondent on 26th April 1962 as well as the order under attack, namely, Ex. P-3 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises, will have both to be set aside. Proceedings will be taken by the Accommodation Controller afresh; and having due regard to the observations made above, the Accommodation Controller will consider the preferential claim of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent coming under the class of non-officials having due regard to the importance of their service to society, and then take a final decision regarding the allotment of the house in question in favour of the petitioner or the 2nd respondent; in that connection the Accommodation Controller will no doubt give an opportunity to both petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent to place their respective claims, by giving them an opportunity of being hear in respect of those matters. 16. Subject to these directions observations the orders under attack are set aside and the parties will bear the costs. Allowed.