Judgment :- 1. This writ petition was filed by the owner of the building situate in No.4, IVth Street, Bharathi Nagar, Madras. The petitioner claimed that the building was outside the scope of theTamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act as the fair rent for the building was fixed at Rs.1,168 p.m. by the Rent Controller under the provisions of the Act. At that time Sec.30(ii) of the Act exempted the residential building or part thereof occupied by any one tenant, if the monthly rent paid by him in respect of that building or part exceeded four hundred rupees. On that basis, the petitioners contention was that the rent for the building having been fixed at Rs.1,168 p.m. it was entitled to exemption from the provisions of the Act. 2. The Supreme Court of India struck downSec30(ii) of the Act as unconstitutional in Rattan Arya v. State of Tamil Nadu A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1444. Hence the basis of the claim of the petitioner had disappeared. 3. However, when the matter came up before me on 6.3.1991, it was represented that the building was in a dilapidated condition and the allottee who was occupying previously had vacated the premises. It was also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the building had remained vacant from December, 1990 and inspite of a notification of vacancy nobody was prepared to take the building on rent. It was, therefore, contended by the petitioner that this Court should take note of the subsequent event and give a direction to the respondent to deliver the building to the petitioner. As the point was not raised in the original affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, I directed the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit setting out all the facts on which she placed reliance for getting the relief of delivery of possession. 1 directed the petitioner to file the affidavit on or before 30.3.1991, after serving a copy thereof on the learned Additional Government Pleader. I also directed the respondent to file counter affidavit, if necessary on or before 19.4.1991 after serving a copy thereof on the petitioners counsel. I directed the writ petition to be posted on 14.6.1991 for further hearing. 4. According to my directions, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit on 20.3.1991, after serving a copy thereof on the Additional Government Pleader. I also directed the respondent to file counter affidavit, if necessary on or before 19.4.1991 after serving a copy thereof on the petitioners counsel. I directed the writ petition to be posted on 14.6.1991 for further hearing. 4. According to my directions, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit on 20.3.1991, after serving a copy thereof on the Additional Government Pleader. In the supplementary affidavit it is stated that the allottee was evicted from the premises by the Tahsildar in 12.12.1990 and a notification of vacancy was made. It is alleged that no Government servant came forward to occupy the premises and the Accommodation Controller could keep the premises under his control only for ten days after the notification of the vacancy and should give it back to the owner if there is no applicant for the same. It is also stated that the building continued to be vacant since 12.12.1990. Reference is made to a letter dated 18.2.1991 written by counsel for the petitioner to the Additional Government Pleader drawing his attention to the damaged condition of the building and requesting for joint inspection of the premises in the first week of March, 1991. It is now stated by the learned Additional Government Pleader that he forwarded a copy of the letter to the respondent immediately thereafter. 5. The affidavit also makes a reference to the condition of the building as follows in paragraph 12 thereof. “I submit that the premises in question is now in a dilapidated condition. The stair case had been ruined and it cannot be used. The fittings have been removed. The man hole covers had been removed. The motor pumpset is not there. I submit that theft had recently taken place in the said premises. I submit that the back door has been removed. The present condition of the premises is such that it has become unfit for occupation. The petitioner had addressed a letter to the respondent through her lawyer and had also served a copy of the same to the Additional Government Pleader. The petitioner had once again requested for a joint inspection of the premises.” Along with the affidavit, a copy of the letter dated 16.3.1991 addressed to the respondent by the petitioners lawyer, Mr.D.Paul Bright Singh, has been filed. The letter refers to the damages to the building and the condition of the building in detail and requests for joint inspection. The petitioner had once again requested for a joint inspection of the premises.” Along with the affidavit, a copy of the letter dated 16.3.1991 addressed to the respondent by the petitioners lawyer, Mr.D.Paul Bright Singh, has been filed. The letter refers to the damages to the building and the condition of the building in detail and requests for joint inspection. Copy of the letter was sent to the Additional Government Pleader. Learned Additional Government Pleader admits the receipt of the letter. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the letter was sent to the respondent by registered post and he has got postal acknowledgement for the receipt of the same by the respondent. The acknowledgment has also been produced and it shows that the respondent received the letter on 21.3.1991. 5. There is no counter-affidavit by the respondent for this supplementary affidavit, though I had fixed time limit therefor. Learned Additional Government Pleader says that on account of various reasons there could not be any contact between himself and the respondent and he could not file the counter. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the relevant file has been produced in court and that would be sufficient in the circumstances of the case. 6. It is seen from the file produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the premises was taken possession of by the respondent from its allottee on 12.12.1990 by forcibly evicting him. There is a draft notice dated 10.1.1991, which purports to be a notification of the vacancy. As per that notice, the last date for applications for allotment of the building was fixed as 18.1.1991. According to the notice applications were called for from “evictors category”. The office note found in the file is to the effect that there was no application from any person belonging to “evictors category”. But according to the note, two applications had been received; one on 17.1.1991 and another in 18.1.1991. The time at which they were received has not been mentioned in the applications, though, according to the notification, the applications should reach the respondent before 1 p.m. on 18.1.1991. One application is from Mrs.A.Viswasamary, Physiotherapist, Government General Hospital, Madras and another from Mr.K.S.Venkataraman, District Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Madras City. The time at which they were received has not been mentioned in the applications, though, according to the notification, the applications should reach the respondent before 1 p.m. on 18.1.1991. One application is from Mrs.A.Viswasamary, Physiotherapist, Government General Hospital, Madras and another from Mr.K.S.Venkataraman, District Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Madras City. The second application does not mention anywhere that the building is required for the purpose of accommodating students belonging to Backward Classes or that the building will be utilised as a hostel for students. The relevant columns are blank. Excepting the particulars of the notification of vacancy in the reference column at the top of the application, no other part of the application has been filled up. It bears the signature of the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer and the date mentioned below the signature is 11.1.1991. Yet the application bears the seal of the office of the respondent giving the date as 18.1.1991. In contra, the other application by A. Viswasa Mary contains certain details about the income of the applicant and some more parts of the applications are filled up. Significantly, the ink used by the officials in the office of the respondent and the ink used by the person who has signed the copy of the order issued by the respondent on 25.1.1991 is the same as the ink used in the application form purporting to have been given by the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer. There is a copy of the order dated 25.1.1991 purporting to have been issued by the respondent allotting the premises to the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer. There is an endorsement on the copy of the letter made by the said officer to the effect that he received a copy thereof on 28.1.1991. Strangely, there is another cyclostyled copy of the very same order dated 25.1.1991 bearing an endorsement “received copy on behalf of the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer”, mentioning the date as 30.1.1991. If the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer had already received the order on 28.1.1991 in person by himself signing the acknowledgment, there is no. necessity for again serving a copy on some official in his office and getting an acknowledgment dated 30.1.1991. In all probability, the application for allotment was itself prepared much later and antedated. At any late, the application was not on the date it bears; 7. necessity for again serving a copy on some official in his office and getting an acknowledgment dated 30.1.1991. In all probability, the application for allotment was itself prepared much later and antedated. At any late, the application was not on the date it bears; 7. I am not resting my conclusion on a mere suspicion which arises on a perusal of the file. There are other factors also. In the writ petition, a detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondent on 19.2.1991. In that counter affidavit, it is stated in paragraph 9 as follows: “In this connection it is also pointed out that the possession of the premises was taken over from the allottee and it was re-allotted.” The baldness of the statement proves beyond doubt that there was no real allotment on the date when the counter affidavit was filed in this Court. If there had been such reallotment, the particulars thereof would certainly have found a place in the counter affidavit. Learned Additional Government Pleader submits that there was no necessity for the respondent to refer to the factum of reallotment because the writ petition was based only on the non-applicability of the Act to the building. I do not agree. When the Government is filing a counter affidavit in this Court in answer to a writ petition filed by a citizen of this country, it is the duty of the Government to place all the facts before court so that the Court may come to a proper conclusion and render justice. The State Government cannot reduce itself to the level of an ordinary litigant and try to defeat the claims of the citizens. If there had been an allotment before 19.2.1991, it was the duty of the respondent to have told this Court that allotment was made to such and such person on such and such date. In the absence of such particulars, I draw an adverse inference against the respondent and hold that there was no allotment before 19.2.1991 at all. Any allotment order that was made was done only after that date. 8. Apart from that, there is nothing on record to show that the so-called order of allotment was served on the petitioner. If really an order had been made before the file was produced before me in Court, the order ought to have been served on the petitioner. Any allotment order that was made was done only after that date. 8. Apart from that, there is nothing on record to show that the so-called order of allotment was served on the petitioner. If really an order had been made before the file was produced before me in Court, the order ought to have been served on the petitioner. But the only endorsement found in the file is that“(‘sent’). That bears the date 30.1.1991. There is nothing on record to show by what process the copy of the allotment order was sent to the petitioner. Rule 22 framed under the Act provides for service of notice and summons. It prescribes four methods by which a notice or summons could be served on the person concerned. The first method is by giving or tendering it to such person. The second method is to leave it at his last known place of abode or business if that person is not found or by giving or tendering it to some adult member of his family. The third method is to send it by registered post with acknowledgment due and the last method is to affix it in some conspicuous part of the last known place of abode or business. No doubt, it may be contended that the Rule as such may not apply to the order in question. But then the statutory rules prescribe specific methods for service of notice and summons, those methods should have been followed by the respondent herein for the purpose of serving the order of allotment on the petitioner. But the records do not show as. to whether any of those methods were followed. The simplest method was to, send it by registered post, if really the respondent was not in a position to send it through personal messenger. Whatever that may be, the records do not show that the order was served on the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that no order had been served on her till date. 9. The order dated 25.1.1991 directs the allottee to send within a week after the occupation of the building stamp papers worth Rs.2.50 for the purpose of entering into an agreement with the owner of the building. The records do not show whether such stamp papers were sent by the allottee to the respondent. 9. The order dated 25.1.1991 directs the allottee to send within a week after the occupation of the building stamp papers worth Rs.2.50 for the purpose of entering into an agreement with the owner of the building. The records do not show whether such stamp papers were sent by the allottee to the respondent. Nor is there anything to show that the allottee took possession of the building at any time. On the other hand, that petitioner has produced a letter written by the allottee under L1“37975”90, dated 3.6.1991. In that letter, the allottee has stated that certain repairs had to be undertaken immediately for the building and a letter was sent on 30.4.1991 to the petitioner for that purpose with a request to carry out the repairs. According to that letter, there was no reply by the petitioner and the repairs were not carried out. Hence the petitioner was informed through the letter that the repairs will be carried out by the allottee and the expenses would be deducted from the rent. This letter dated 3.6.1991 clearly shows that the allottee did not occupy the building. The petitioner denies receipt of letter dated 30.4.1991. According to the petitioner, even today, the building remains vacant. 10. Learned Additional Government Pleader placed reliance on two receipts issued by the petitioner in acknowledgment of receipt of rent. One receipt is dated 11.4.1991. According to that receipt, two cheques were received by the petitioner; one for Rs.3090 and another for Rs.1,168. The first cheque is said to be towards the rent for the period 12.12.1990 to 28.2.1991 and the second cheque is for the period 1.3.1991 to31.3.1991.The second receipt is dated 20.6.1991. That is for a sum of Rs.2,336. It is said to represent the rent for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.5.1991. The allottee is directed by the order dated 25.1.1991 to pay rent from 12.12.1990. The allottee is also directed to pay the rent for every month on or before the 5th of the succeeding month. Neither of the directions has been complied with by the allottee. The first payment is made only on 11.4.1991 and the second payment on 29.5.1991. Both the receipts show that the allottee has not been paying the rent every month or before the 5th of the succeeding month. Neither of the directions has been complied with by the allottee. The first payment is made only on 11.4.1991 and the second payment on 29.5.1991. Both the receipts show that the allottee has not been paying the rent every month or before the 5th of the succeeding month. I am relying on this fact only to show that the fact, the condition imposed in the order dated 25.1.1991 was not complied with strengthens conclusion that no order of allotment was made on 25.1.1991 as claimed by the respondent. 11. The petitioners counsel states that the petitioner received the amounts when they were sent to her through some messenger, without knowing exactly the implication and the consequence of the receipt of the said amounts. The petitioner is aged about 70 and the respondent was admittedly in arrears for quite a long period. In fact, the arrears of rent amounting to more than one lakh of rupees was paid by the respondent after my direction to that effect in the contempt application taken out by the petitioner. The petitioner not having seen the colour of the coin for quite a long time, received the amounts sent by the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer without knowing what exactly it represented. The submission made by the petitioners counsel appears to be acceptable and I accept the same. The fact that two amounts sent by the allottee have been received by the petitioner would not prevent the petitioner from claiming the release of the building in this writ petition. 12. Thus, on the facts it is clear that the building has been vacant from 12.12.1990 and the case of the petitioner that it is vacant even today has to be accepted for the reasons I have already stated. In those circumstances, the respondent is not entitled to continue to have control over the building. This Court has in a number of decisions held that if the building is kept vacant by the Accommodation Controller for an unreasonable period, he is bound to release the building and surrender possession to the owner thereof. One such judgment is reported in Mangh Raj Thakurdas v. Accommodation Controller (1965)1 MLJ. 545. It is also pointed out by this Court that the reasonable period will be a month or two. One such judgment is reported in Mangh Raj Thakurdas v. Accommodation Controller (1965)1 MLJ. 545. It is also pointed out by this Court that the reasonable period will be a month or two. Hence, following the judgment in the above case, I hold that the respondent is bound to release the building to the petitioner and surrender possession of the same. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent to deliver possession of the premises in Door No.4, IV Street, Bharathi Nagar, North Usman Road, Madras-17, to the petitioner. Possession shall be handed over to the petitioner on or before 9.8.1991. Learned Additional Government Pleader states that the respondent would require more time to hand over possession and he prays for atleast two months time. I am of the view that, having regard to the condition of the building, the respondent shall not keep the building any longer under his control and shall hand over the same as early as possible to the petitioner. Hence I fix the date as 9.8.1991. No costs.