Order.- This is a revision by the landlady against her conviction under section 3 (5) read with section 33 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and a fine of Rs. 200 imposed on her by the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore. The house in question is No. 4, Casa Major Road, Egmore. The tenant Komathi Ammal who was in occupation informed Chellammal, the mother of the petitioner herein, that she would be vacating the house on 26th February, 1963 by Exhibit P-1 dated 12th February, 1963. The Accommodation Controller coming to know that the premises was likely to fall vacant issued Exhibit P-2 dated 14th February, 1963 calling upon Chellammal to give vacancy report as required under section 3 (1) of the Act as soon as the building fell vacant. On 19th February, 1963, Chellammal and the petitioner wrote to the Accommodation Controller Exhibit P-3 acknowledging Exhibit P-2. In that letter it was stated that the premises belonged to the petitioner under a settlement deed executed in her favour by her father, that out of the several houses given to the petitioner, the premises No. 4, Casa Major Road was the biggest and the best, that as the petitioner’s marriage was being arranged, she required separate residence for her and that, therefore, the premises No. 4, Casa Major Road, should be released to her. On 21st February, 1963 by (Exhibit P-4), the Accommodation Controller issued an offering notice stating that the premises was vacant and calling upon the officers who were interested in occupying the house to inspect the house and give their consent if they were satisfied with the building and wanted it for their occupation. On 27th February, 1963 by Exhibit P-5 the Accommodation Controller passed an order under section 3 (3) of the Act informing the petitioner that the premises was required for Governmental purposes and that the premises should not be occupied by the landlady or let out to any person but should be handed over to the allottee or to the person authorised by the Accommodation Controller. On the same day, the petitioner wrote Exhibit P-3, stating that the tenant Komathi Ammal had not so far given vacant possession of the building and that she was under the impression that she could send the vacancy report after taking possession of the house. On the same day, the petitioner wrote Exhibit P-3, stating that the tenant Komathi Ammal had not so far given vacant possession of the building and that she was under the impression that she could send the vacancy report after taking possession of the house. It also referred to her request for the release of the building for her own occupation. Pending decision on her request, she also prayed that the house should not be allotted to anyone. On 28th February, 1963 the premises fell vacant and on 3rd March, 1963 the petitioner gave vacancy notice Exhibit D-5. The petitioner also stated that the house was in a very bad condition and required repairs. Again the petitioner reiterated her request for release of the building for her own use. On 6th March, 1963, the Accommodation Controller served a notice Exhibit P-8 through a special messenger. In that letter the Accommodation Controller informed the petitioner that the premises was taken over under section 3 (3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It also referred to his statement that the premises was required for Governmental purposes and that vacant possession should be handed over to the person authorised by the Accommodation Controller. He invited the attention of the petitioner to section 3 (5) of the Act and stated that it had been brought to his notice that the flooring had been dug up and renewed from the front verandah of the house and that the act was highly irregular and in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner was called upon to restore the building to its original condition and hand over the same to the Accommodation Deputy Tahsildar on or before 12th March, 1963. The petitioner was also informed that if she failed to do so, she would be prosecuted under section 33 of the Act. On the same date, under Exhibit P-6 the Government allotted the premises to an I.A.S. Officer as a special case. On nth March, 1963 under Exhibit P-9 the petitioner wrote to the Accommodation Controller stating that she had been acting in conformity with the law and that she had given notice within seven days of the building falling vacant. She also stated that as the repairs were being carried on, it would take some time to put the building in good tenantable condition. She also stated that as the repairs were being carried on, it would take some time to put the building in good tenantable condition. In the circumstances, she submitted that it was unnecessary and even unfair to threaten her with prosecution. On 20th March, 1963, the Government by Exhibit P-10 approved the action of the Accommodation Controller in calling upon the landlady to restore the premises to its original condition. On the facts stated above, it has to be determined whether the petitioner has contravened section 3 (5) of the Act. Section 3 (1) (a) (i) of the Act provides that every landlord shall, within seven days after the building becomes vacant by the termination of tenancy, give notice of the vacancy in writing to the officer authorized in that behalf by the Government. The tenant also is required to give notice within seven days after the building, becomes vacant in writing to the officer authorised by the Government. Section 3 (3) provides that if, within seven days of the receipt by the authorised officer of a notice of vacancy by the landlord under sub-section (1), the Government or the authorised officer does not intimate to the landlord in writing that the building is required for the purposes of the State or Central Government or of any local authority or of any public institution or for the occupation of any officer of such Government, the landlord shall be at liberty to let the building to any tenant or to occupy it himself. Sub-section (4) of section 3 provides that when the landlord gives intimation under sub-section (1), he shall not let the building to a tenant or occupy it himself before the expiry of the period of seven days from the receipt of the notice. Sub-section (5) provides that if the building is required for the purposes mentioned in sub-section (3), the landlord shall deliver possession of the building in good tenantable repairs and condition to the authorised officer or to the allottee named by the authorised officer and the tenancy will commence from the date on which the authorised officer received notice from the landlord. Thus it will be seen that, on a reading of sub-sections (1), (3), (4) and (5) of section 3, it is enjoined on the landlord to give notice of vacancy within seven days after the building becomes vacant. Thus it will be seen that, on a reading of sub-sections (1), (3), (4) and (5) of section 3, it is enjoined on the landlord to give notice of vacancy within seven days after the building becomes vacant. It may be noted that the notice contemplated is to be given after the building becomes vacant and within seven days from the date after the building becomes vacant. Sub-section (3) of section 3 empowers the Government or the authorized officer to intimate to the landlord that the building is required for Governmental purposes within seven days of the receipt of the notice given by the landlord under sub-section (1). The exercise of power under sub-section (3) arises only after the receipt of notice under sub-section (1). Thus the power to requisition the house arises only after the receipt of the notice of vacancy from the landlord which should be within seven days after the building becomes vacant. The landlord also is prohibited from occupying it himself or letting it to any one until the expiry of seven days specified in section 3 (3) of the Act and under sub-section (5) the landlord is further required to deliver possession to the authorised officer or to an allottee by him. In this case, it is admitted that the building fell vacant only on 28th February, 1963 and the landlady informed the Accommodation Controller under Exhibit D-5 on 3rd March, 1963 about the vacancy. Therefore under section 3 (3) of the Act the Accommodation Controller will be entitled to requisition the building for Governmental purposes before 10th March, 1963. What happened in this case was, the Accommodation Controller coming to know that the building was likely to fall vacant by the end of February, 1963 called upon the landlady by Exhibit P-2 on 14th February, 1963 to give, vacancy notice and again under Exhibit P-4 dated 21st February, 1963 notified to the officers that the premises was vacant and informed them that they could inspect the premises and notify their consent. The requisition was made by his letter Exhibit P-5 dated 27th February, 1963 in the exercise of the power vested in him under section 3 (3) of the Act as the building was required for Governmental purposes. It was stated that the building should not be occupied by the landlady. The requisition was made by his letter Exhibit P-5 dated 27th February, 1963 in the exercise of the power vested in him under section 3 (3) of the Act as the building was required for Governmental purposes. It was stated that the building should not be occupied by the landlady. Exhibit P-5 is admittedly not in accordance with sub-section (3) of the Act for the building fell vacant only on the next day namely 28th February, 1965, and the vacancy notice which, under section 3 (1), is to be given by the landlord after the building fell vacant, was to be given only before 7th March, 1963. Only on receipt of the vacancy notice under section 3 (1), the Accommodation Controller is empowered to requisition the building within seven days of the receipt of the notice. Therefore when Exhibit P-5 was passed on 27th February, 1963 notifying that the building was required for Governmental purposes, the Accommodation Controller was not legally entitled to do so, as the building had not fallen vacant and as the notice under section 3 (1) had not been given. In the complaint preferred by the Accommodation Deputy Tahsildar, it was mentioned that the accused (landlady) notified the vacancy to the authorized officer by her letter dated 21st February, 1963, that the premises was notified to Government official on 21st February, 1963 and that it was taken over under section 3 (3) of the Act on 27th February, 1963. It was also alleged that before the orders of allotment could be issued to the landlady, it was brought to the notice of the authorised officer that the landlady had deliberately made the house unfit for occupation by causing damage to the flooring, etc., thereby defeating the object for which the house was taken over under section 3 (3) of the Act. The complaint also mentioned that the accused was given time till 12th March, 1963 and the accused failed to hand over the premises in good tenantable condition, as required under section 3 (5) of the Act and thereby contravened the provisions of section 3 (5) read with section 33 of the Act. On the facts alleged in the complaint, the petitioner cannot be found guilty of an offence under section 3 (5) of the Act. On the facts alleged in the complaint, the petitioner cannot be found guilty of an offence under section 3 (5) of the Act. It was erroneously stated in the complaint that the landlady had notified the vacancy in her letter dated 21st February, 1963. On the other hand as pointed out above, the vacancy notice was given only on 3rd March, 1963. The action of the Accommodation Controller in notifying to the officials on 21st February, 1963 and his taking proceedings under section 3 (3) on 27th February, 1963 is not therefore in accordance with the law. Subsection (5) is subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3. It provides that if the building is required for any of the purposes or for occupation by any of the officers specified in sub-section (3), the landlord shall deliver possession of the building to the authorized officer or to the allottee and the Government shall be deemed to be the tenant of the landlord with retrospective effect from the date on which the authorized officer received notice. It was contended by learned Public Prosecutor that sub-section (5) should be read independently of any service of notice of vacancy by the landlord under section 3 (1) or the officer taking action under sub-section (3) of section 3. According to him, section 3 (5) should be read independently and it should be construed to mean that the Accommodation Controller is entitled, when a building is required for the purpose of occupation of the officers specified in sub-section (3), to call upon the landlord to deliver possession of the building and if the landlord fails to do so, he would be contravening section 3 (5) of the Act. I am unable to accept this contention for a reading of sub-section (5) would indicate that it is subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of section 3 and that any action under sub-section (5) can only be in furtherance of sub-section (3). The mention that the tenancy will have retrospective effect from the date on which the authorized officer received notice would also support this view. The mention that the tenancy will have retrospective effect from the date on which the authorized officer received notice would also support this view. Any other construction is not possible for if sub-section (5) is construed as an independent section, the authorized officer will be empowered to require the landlord to deliver possession of the building at any time, whereas under sub-section (3) if he fails to notify that the building is required for Govrenmental purposes within seven days of the receipt of the vacancy notice given by the landlord, the landlord will be at liberty to let the building to any tenant or to occupy it himself. A harmonious construction of the sub-sections would be that sub-section (5) is subject to sub-section (3) of the Act. On the complaint, therefore no offence is made out. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even conceding that the Accommodation Controller was not empowered to notify under section 3 (3) on 27th February, 1963, after receipt of the vacancy notice on 3rd March, 1963, he was entitled to notify till 10th March, 1963, and therefore even though the order of requisitioning the building was passed on 27th February, 1963, it should be held that the requisition was legal and binding. I am unable to accept this contention. Mr. Govindan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that not only there had been no contravention of any of the rules but his client, the landlady, was treated rather unfairly by the Accommodation Controller. He submitted that her request for her own occupation of the building by her letters dated 19th February, 1963, and 3rd March, 1963 was not properly considered either by the Accommodation Controller or by the Government. He submitted that the Accommodation Controller was in an unseemly hurry to allot the building to one of the officers without in any way considering the bona fide requirements of the petitioner. He submitted that though on 19th February, 1963 the petitioner informed the Accommodation Controller that the building was required for her own use, the Accommodation Controller had intimated the officers on 21st February, 1963 that the house was vacant and further on 27th February, 1963. he took steps under section 3 (3) without in any way referring to the request of the petitioner that the building was required for her own use. he took steps under section 3 (3) without in any way referring to the request of the petitioner that the building was required for her own use. The petitioner also informed the Accommodation Controller by her letter Exhibit D-3 dated 27th February, 1963 that the house was wanted for her own occupation. In the report (Exhibit D-4) by the Accommodation Controller dated 28th February, 1963 it was stated that the enquiry revealed that the request of the landlady for the release of the premises was not bona fide. The Government also passed an order on 6th March, 1963 allotting the house to one of the I.A.S. Officers. The petitioner was not informed as to what happened to her request for her personal occupation of the house except in the letter of the Accommodation Controller where it was stated that her request was not bona fide. However genuine the grievance of the petitioner may be, it cannot be said that either the Accommodation Controller or the Government failed to dispose of the application of the landlady requiring the house for her own occupation in accordance with the law. The only provision under which the landlady can get a building for her own occupation is section 29 under which she can apply for exemption to the Government. It is admitted that, in this case, the petitioner did not address the Government for any exemption nor is there material to show that it was brought to the notice of the Government that the petition of the landlady had to be considered by it. The Accommodation Controller is not empowered under the Act to release the house for the own use of the landlady. Therefore, the failure of the Accommodation Controller to take action on the letters of the landlady informing him that the house was required for her own use cannot be said to be in breach of any statutory duty cast on him. It may be that it is desirable that the request of the landlady for the release of the house for her own use should be considered on its merits. As there has been no contravention of any of the requirements of the Act or the Rules, the petitioner cannot have any legal grievance. In the result, the petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence of fine are set aside. The fine, if paid, is directed to be refunded. As there has been no contravention of any of the requirements of the Act or the Rules, the petitioner cannot have any legal grievance. In the result, the petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence of fine are set aside. The fine, if paid, is directed to be refunded. V.K. ------- Petition allowed.