Judgment :- 1. The petitioner and the member of his undivided family are owning an extent of 74 grounds and 1100 sq. ft., equivalent to 16,599 sq. metres at No. 101, Santhome High Road, Madras-600028. The petitioner submitted a report under S. 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A local inspection was made by the 2nd respondent/Competent Authority under the Act and on such local inspection, the 2nd respondent found that the petitioner and the members of his undivided family are not owning any excess vacant land. It is useful to extract the report of the 2nd respondent dated 27.1.1986, which is at pages 85 and 86 of the file produced by the respondents: “On physical verification of the above property and after taking into account of the built up area, building regulation area and contiguous vacant land to each building and the entitlement area allowed for family members and then the property held by Thiru M.S. Meyyappan is well within the ceiling limit under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978.” 2. It is seen from the note file, which is in the file produced by the respondents, that after physical verification of the site with reference to the sketch prepared by the Sub Inspector of Survey and after taking into account of the built up area, the building regulation area, contiguous vacant land to each building and servant and staff quarters, law, cement paved way, car parking area and the area allowed for six members family, there is no vacant land available in the property. Hence, the office put up a note whether an endorsement to that effect may be issued to the urban land owner. It is further seen from the file that the said office note was accepted on the basis of the physical verification of the site and the inspection report, by the authority concerned. 3. The successor Competent Authority, who inspected the site, has also concurred with the findings of his predecessor-in-office. It is further seen from the file that the said office note was accepted on the basis of the physical verification of the site and the inspection report, by the authority concerned. 3. The successor Competent Authority, who inspected the site, has also concurred with the findings of his predecessor-in-office. The successor Competent Authority issued a notice to the petitioner and made local inspection once again and had physical verification of the site in question and on such physical verification, he concurred with the findings of the earlier Competent Authority, and submitted a report to the Director of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax somewhere in the year 1989. 4. While so, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 29.7.1989 to show cause as to why the order of the 2nd respondent should not be revoked under S. 34 of the Act by exercising the suo motu powers of revision vested in the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 770, Revenue Department, dated 29.4.1988. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the said show cause notice on 4.1.1990. In the explanation, the petitioner had specifically stated that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent are in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under, that the hotel premises was constructed long before the Act came into force, that there is no procedural irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the proceedings of the 2nd respondent and requested the 1st respondent to drop further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice. 5. It is pertinent at this stage to notice that the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to produce documentary evidence to show that the buildings are constructed long before the Act coming into force and also lawn area and payment way were in existence long before the said Act coming into force, for which the petitioner prayed for sufficient time to produce the relevant records from the Corporation of Madras. Since the buildings were constructed 35 years back, the old and ancient records have to be traced from the Corporation of Madras, according to the petitioner. The 1st respondent, however, without giving sufficient opportunity, issued a show cause notice and after receiving written explanation from the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 23.1.1990 in RC. Since the buildings were constructed 35 years back, the old and ancient records have to be traced from the Corporation of Madras, according to the petitioner. The 1st respondent, however, without giving sufficient opportunity, issued a show cause notice and after receiving written explanation from the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 23.1.1990 in RC. No. 38893/87/11, holding that the order of the 2nd respondent is not in order and that lawn area and built up payment area cannot be treated as a non-vaant land and in that view, set aside the orders of the 2nd respondent and directed the 2nd respondent/Competent Authority for fresh proceedings under Ss. 9 to 11 of the Act. As against the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is seen from the counter affidavit that the petitioner owns an extent of 74,1100 sq. ft. or 16,577 sq. metres as detailed below in his capacity as Kartha of Hindu Undivided Family. Village R.S. No. Extent Gr. Sq. Ft. Mylapore 4310/3 1,0060 4311/5 6,0469 4463/2 1,1677 4462/2 2,1836 4464/2 2,0330 4569/2 58,1500 4569/17 0,1008 4569/18 1,1420 74,1100 or 16477 Sq. Metres 7. The above lands, according to the counter affidavit, were originally owned by the petitioners father M.S. Ramaswami Chettair as Kartha of his son, the petitioner herein, and the other members of his family. The properties held by them were partitioned with effect from 13.4.1963 by a deed of partition in No. 734/63 dated 15.4.1963. According to the said partition, the properties in question in which Hotel Oceanic was being run, were divided equally between M.S. Ramaswami Chettiar and his son, the petitioner herein. As regards the half share held by M.S. Ramaswami Chettiar, he left a Will dated 6.5.1963 making a partition that the aforesaid partition and held by him separately, shall, after his death, belong only to the male issue of his son, the petitioner herein, on the attainment of majority by such male issue, and till then, managed and controlled by an executor in accordance with the terms of his will. M.S. Ramawami Chettiar died on 3.9.1964 and accordingly, half share of the lands with buildings in the above survey number came to be vested with legal entity of an intermediate estate under the control and management of the Executor under the Will. 8. M.S. Ramawami Chettiar died on 3.9.1964 and accordingly, half share of the lands with buildings in the above survey number came to be vested with legal entity of an intermediate estate under the control and management of the Executor under the Will. 8. The counter affidavit further alleges that the then Assistant Commissioner who inspected the above lands on 25.1.1986, issued orders to the urban land owner to the effect that the above properties were well within the ceiling limit, in his office Proceedings K. Dis. SRA. 28/85 dated 27.1.1986. The Government in their letter No. 1851, Revenue, dated 17.12.1987 have rejected the exemption petition of the Hotel Oceanic since M.S. Ramaswami Chettiar and the petitioner herein are the owners of the land as on 3.8.1976. According to the learned Government Advocate, the Commissioner of Land Reforms in his J1/39083/87 dated 5.1.1988 has directed the 2nd respondent to proceed to acquire the excess vacant land. On the basis of the 2nd respondents proposal dated 3.3.1989, the 1st respondent has found that the calculation was wrong. After enquiring the urban land owner, the 1st respondent has issued the impugned proceedings by cancelling the Clearance Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent in his Office Proceedings No. K.Dis. SRA. 228/85 dated 27.1.1986 under S. 34 of the Act, for which powers are delegated in G.O.Ms. No. 770, Revenue, dated 24.4.1988. He also ordered to acquire the excess vacant land held by the urban land owner under Ss. 9 to 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the statement under S. 9(1) of the Act and notice under S. 9(4) of the Act were issued on 31.1.1990 for the excess vacant land measuring 5308.322 sq. metres. The said notice was received by the land owner on 10.4.1990. In the meanwhile, the urban land owner/petitioner filed the present writ petition and obtained interim stay of the impugned proceedings in W.M.P. No. 8830 of 1990 on 4.5.1990. 9. According to the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent has found that there is no proof for the existence of the buildings on the subject lands before 3.8.1976. Therefore, the 1st respondent has issued orders cancelling the Clearance Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent submits that the said order has been passed only on merit after giving several opportunities to the petitioner to prove the above point and in accordance with law. Therefore, the 1st respondent has issued orders cancelling the Clearance Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent submits that the said order has been passed only on merit after giving several opportunities to the petitioner to prove the above point and in accordance with law. It is further contended that the 1st respondent has afforded several opportunities to the petitioner on 21.8.1989, 31.10.1989, and 15.11.1989 and 23.1.1990 to produce documentary evidence to prove that the buildings in the subject lands were constructed before 3.8.1976. In spite of several opportunity being given to the petitioner to produce the relevant records, he has failed to do so. It is then stated that the lawn and pavement cannot be treated as non-vacant land with reference to G.O.Ms. No. 65, Revenue, dated 10.1.1977. There is no approved building plan for the buildings and the payment, and that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence even though an opportunity has been given to file the documents. 10. It is seen from the impugned proceedings that the petitioner has not placed any proof to show that the buildings were in existence on the lands in question and that they were constructed prior to 3.8.1976. Therefore, the 1st respondent has issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the Clearance Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent earlier. Hence, the only question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the proof now placed by the petitioner before this Court to show that the buildings were in existence on the disputed lands in question and that they were constructed before 3.8.1976, is to be accepted or not. 11. It is seen from the representation made by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent and also before the 1st respondent that the buildings were in existence from 1954 onwards and that he could not produce the documents at the time of enquiry by the 1st respondent since those documents were not readily traceable and available to be filed before the 1st respondent since they pertain to 35 years back. It is also seen from the reply sent by the petitioner on 4.1.1990 to the 1st respondents letter No. 38893/87(I. 1) that the property in question consist of several buildings constructed even before 1954 for running a Star Hotel and hence the lands are to be treated as non-vacant lands. It is also seen from the reply sent by the petitioner on 4.1.1990 to the 1st respondents letter No. 38893/87(I. 1) that the property in question consist of several buildings constructed even before 1954 for running a Star Hotel and hence the lands are to be treated as non-vacant lands. The petitioner has also furnished all the details about his entitlement. It is useful to reproduce the reply sent by the petitioner on 4.1.1990. Extent Sq. Mts. B.R. Area Sq.Mts. Total Sq. Mts. 1. Hotel 2 Buildings (3 storied) 1450 2000 3471 2. Residential quarters for servants (two separate row of houses) 82 2000 2082 3. Dholikana with Res. quarters. 15 1000 1015 4. Staff quarters 290 1000 1290 5. Store Rooms 2 Nos. 408 1000 1408 6. Building demonished) basement retained) 17 500 574 7. Shed near Petrol Bank (in R.S. No. 4310/5) 17 500 517 8. Transformer shed (half shed lies in other property) 12 250 262 9. Staff rest shed near the sump 28 500 528 10. Other Buildings Well and Sewage Well 2 Cement Tank 2 Sump 10 Ground level tank 7 Lavatory 8 Small Shed 5 34 - 34 11. Used as road which has to be treated as non-vacant land as per Rule 3-A of the Act 2680 12. Car parking area-approved by Corporation Cement Payment 1700 — Total non-vacant land 15361 Family entitlement 3000 —- 18361 The position as stands is as follows: Total extent 16602 Land leased out to B.P.C. 1041 —— Balance with us 15561 Sq. Mts. —— It may be seen from the above tact’s as entitlement is 18,361 Sq. mts. whereas we are having only 15,561 Sq. mts. of properties only.” 12. Thus, according to the written representation made by the petitioner, the buildings were in existence even before 1954 for running a Star Hotel and hence, they have to be treated as non-vacant land, and as such, the orders passed by the 2nd respondent are correct, and that the buildings were constructed to run a hotel long before the commencement of the Act. The partition deed dated 15.4.1963, the Will executed by the father of the petitioner on 6.5.1963 and the Indenture made between the father of the petitioner and the petitioner on the one hand and Bur mah Shall Oil Storage and distributing Company of India Limited on the other would show that a portion of the property has been leased out to Bur mah Shell Company for the purpose of erecting one or more pumps service/filling stations together with underground tanks and other fittings for storage of petrol and high speed diesel oil and for carrying on business in such products. This document was executed on 2.9.1964 and registered on 4.9.1964 in the Sub Registrars office, Mylapore. It is seen from the schedule, that the northern boundary has been described as Hotel Oceanic Compound belonging to the lessor. This will go to show that the Hotel Oceanic was in existence even in the year 1964, i.e., long prior to the coming into force to the Act. 13. It is seen from the statement of the petitioner given before the authorities, that he and his father Ramaswami Chettiar have jointly owned the land and buildings in equal shares and that the Hindu Undivided Family was partitioned with effect from 13.4.1963 and in accordance with the same, the business of Hotel Oceanic comprising also of the lands and buildings in question, was divided equally between, M.S. Ramaswami Chettiar and his son, the petitioner, and the respective half share in the same continued to be held separately by them. As regards the half share held by M.S. Ramaswami Chettiar, he left a Will dated 6.5.1963 making a provision in the same that the properties obtained by him on the aforesaid partition and held by him separately, shall after hisdeath, belong only to the male issues of his son viz., the petitioner herein, on the attainment of majority by such male issues and till then, from the time of his death, it will be an intermediary estate to managed and controlled by an Executor in accordance with the terms of his Will. M.S. Ramaswami Chettiar died on 3.9.1964. Accordingly, the half share of lands with buildings in the above survey numbers came to be vested with the legal entity of an intermediate estate under the control and management of the Executor under the Will. 14. M.S. Ramaswami Chettiar died on 3.9.1964. Accordingly, the half share of lands with buildings in the above survey numbers came to be vested with the legal entity of an intermediate estate under the control and management of the Executor under the Will. 14. As regards the properties obtained on partition (half share) in the lands and buildings in the above survey numbers of Hotel Oceanic by the petitioner on the birth of a son to him on 2.7.1966, the said properties came to be owned by the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of the petitioner as Kartha, his son and two daughters as the other members. The family consists of the following members: Name Date of Birth 1. M.S. Meyappan 20.8.1936 2. Mrs. Alangamai Meyyappan 26.10.1941 3. M. Seetha 29.8.1962 4. M. Ramaswami 2.7.1966 5. M. Kannammai 2.2.1970 6. Tmt. Seethai Achi W/O. late Ramaswami Chettiar. 5.8.1905 15. The two blocks comprising of multistoreyed buildings of ground floor and three further floors comprised in the entire land in R.S. Nos. 4569/2, 4569/18 and 4569/17 along with the existing building at south west end of the land in R.S. No. 4569/2, abutting the then proposed Corporation Road now existing on the western side and the South Canal Bank Road on Southern side were duly permitted according to the plan approved by the appropriate authority viz., the Corporation of Madras, in P. No. 372/52 dated 1.10.1952. 16. I am convinced with the explanation given by the petitioner that the approved plan is not available due to long passage of time. The entire area of the land in R.S. No. 4310/5 is being occupied by the buildings of service station and petrol bunk and the same is leased out to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. It is also seen from the records and the sketch prepared by the officials at the time of inspection, that the building area, of all the structures and the regulation area for each structure, and contiguous vacant land in each building and allowances for servant and staff quarters and the family entitlement for six members are allowed, then there would be no excess vacant land in the lands of the petitioner. The petitioner has also at the time of hearing produced the original tax receipt issued by the Corporation of Madras for payment to property tax for the periods 1 and 2 of 1965-1966, and 1 and 2 of 1966-1967, 1 and 2 of 1967-1968. The property has been assessed in the name of M.S. Ramaswami Chettiar, the father of the petitioner. The tax was paid by the petitioner herein. The petitioner has also produced property tax receipts for the remaining periods. The petitioner has further placed before this Court the judgment rendered by this Court in C.S. No. 148 of 1969 and O.S.A. No. 58 of 1971. 17. C.S. No. 148 of 1969 was filed for possession and mesne profits by the petitioner herein. The main question that arose for consideration in the said suit was, whether the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are applicable or not to the property in question. It is useful to extract the following few lines from the judgment of the learned single Judge (N.S. Ramaswami, J.): “The suit property is Hotel Oceanic, a western style hotel. This hotel was started by M.S. Ramaswami Chettiar, the father of the 1st plaintiff herein, in 1955. He was running the hotel till 1959 and in that year, himself along with Seethai Achi, the 2nd plaintiff herein, who owns an annexe to the said hotel (by name Hotel Ratnagar) entered into a lease agreement with the two defendants herein. The said lease is dated 12.7.1959 and the document is exhibited as Ex. P-3. The lease period fixed in the document was five years with an option to the defendants, namely, the lessees, to have the lease renewed for a further period of five years. Accordingly, the lease was extended for a further period of five years from 12.7.1959. A registered lease deed was executed by the present plaintiffs and the defendants. Ramaswami Chettiar, father of the 1st plaintiff having died by then. The period of lease as per the second lease deed Ex. P-29 dated 13.12.1965 expired by 11.7.1969.” 18. It is seen from the above judgment that the father of the petitioner was running the Hotel Oceanic till 1959 along with the petitioners adoptive mother Seethai Achi, who owns the annexe to the hotel by name Hotel Ratnagar. The period of lease as per the second lease deed Ex. P-29 dated 13.12.1965 expired by 11.7.1969.” 18. It is seen from the above judgment that the father of the petitioner was running the Hotel Oceanic till 1959 along with the petitioners adoptive mother Seethai Achi, who owns the annexe to the hotel by name Hotel Ratnagar. According to the plaintiffs in that suit, the lease was not merely of the building but is of a going business viz., running the Hotel Oceanic and the annexe hotel Ratnagar. According to them, the lease is a composite lease including not only the building but also fittings and machineries which are not part of the building. They also contended that the hotel business as such having been leased, it is a composite lease and there is no question of the provisions of the Rent Control Act being applicable. The learned single Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs for possession of the property and directed the defendants to pay mesne profits to the plaintiffs at the rate to be fixed after enquiry from 12.7.1959 upto the date of delivery. The defendants lessees preferred an appeal in O.S.A. No. 58 of 1971 and a Division Bench consisting of K. Veeraswami, C.J., and V. Raghavan, J., dismissed the appeal and extended the time for delivery of possession till 31.3.1973 subject to the payment of arrears. The Division Bench has also referred to the negotiation between the defendants and the plaintiffs for a lease of the hotel business with the restaurant in their favour with a view to run the hotel business. It further referred to the lease of the hotel by the plaintiffs to the defendants as per the leave deed dated 12.7.1959. 19. As stated above, pursuant to my direction, the respondent have produced the entire records relating to the case in question. I have perused the entire file, and particularly the inspection report submitted by the 2nd respondent. I am of the view that there is no rhyme or reason for the 1st respondent to set aside the inspection report of the 2nd respondent dated 21.7.1986, which categorically states that the vacant land held by the petitioner and the members of his Hindu Undivided Family is well within the ceiling limit under the provisions of the Act. I am of the view that there is no rhyme or reason for the 1st respondent to set aside the inspection report of the 2nd respondent dated 21.7.1986, which categorically states that the vacant land held by the petitioner and the members of his Hindu Undivided Family is well within the ceiling limit under the provisions of the Act. The Clearance Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent was cancelled by the 1st respondent only on the question of non-production of the records at the time of enquiry, which compelled the records at the time of ending which compelled the 1st respondent to come to the conclusion that the buildings were not in existence on the subject lands before 3.8.1976. I am of the view, that the order passed by the 1st respondent under S. 34 of the Act is not correct in view of the subsequent filing of the relevant documents before this Court. 20. In fact, all the documents produced by the petitioner were verified by the learned Government Advocate. There is no reason for this Court to reject the documents produced before this Court from proper custody at the time of hearing to establish the case of the petitioner. The documents produced were all public documents viz., property tax receipts issued by the Corporation of Madras for the very property in question, and the judgments of this court in the suit and appeal. Thus, viewed from any angle, the petitioner has established that the buildings were in existence prior to the coming into force of the Act viz., on 3.8.1976. The petitioner has also specifically mentioned in his written representation that he and his father were running the hotel industry from 1954 onwards. He has further explained as to why he was unable to get the plan from the Corporation of Madras, which was sanctioned as early as 1952. 21. Even on merits, the petitioner has to succeed in the writ petition. In my opinion, the 1st respondent is not right in holding that the lawn area and the built up pavement area cannot be treated as a non-vacant land. In my view, the lawn, car park and the pavement area are absolutely necessary to run the hotel industry. 21. Even on merits, the petitioner has to succeed in the writ petition. In my opinion, the 1st respondent is not right in holding that the lawn area and the built up pavement area cannot be treated as a non-vacant land. In my view, the lawn, car park and the pavement area are absolutely necessary to run the hotel industry. Having regard to the nature of the business, the area in question is absolutely required by the petitioner and therefore, it is wrong on the part of the 1st respondent to say that the said area is appurtenant to the main building and therefore the said area can be treated as excess vacant land. There is also no misrepresentation or any factual concealment on the part of the petitioner, and as stated already, there was physical verification and local inspection by the competent Authority and that the concerned officials have clearly stated in their reports, that the holding of the petitioner is well within his entitlement. 22. For the fore-going reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 23.1.1990 is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.