Judgment : .1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent culminating in his order No.RC.J2/68726/88 dated 15. 1989 confirming the order ROC 2802/86B dated 30.9.1988 of the third respondent and quash the said impugned order No.RC.J2/68726/88 dated 15. 1989 of the second respondent confirming the order of the third respondent and direct the respondents to treat the petitioner’s building in Plot No.38 IV Seaward Road, Valmiki N agar, Thiruvanmiyur, Madras-41 as a dwelling unit under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1960. 2. In support of the said writ petition, one S.S.Rajasekar, Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner Mrs.Geetha Shenova has filed on affidavit. 3. The petitioner owns a piece of land measuring about 3,700 Sq.Mts. in Thiruvanmiyur Village, Madras in Survey No.210/2A-1A.27. This land was purchased in the year 1960 under a registered sale deed. The petitioner’s sister Mrs.Latha Bhandari purchased the adjoining plot measuring a similar extent by a sale deed dated 9. 1960. The petitioner’s plot bears No.38, IV Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur and her sister’s plot is No.39 of the same area. 4. After purchase of the land, a residential building was constructed in the year 1974 on the two plots. The building was constructed in such a manner that the major portion of the building was in the petitioner’s sister’s plot and the smaller portion in the petitioner’s plot. The building had the same foundation and a common roof and in the petitioner’s portion, a room including a kitchen are situated. It has got a separate entry from the road and there is a well dividing these two portions. Ever since the year 1974, the petitioner’s portion has been used as a residence for the watchman who looks after the said property. 5. In respect of the petitioner’s sister’s land, the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) have treated the portion of the building on other land as a dwelling unit and have given her the benefit of the appurtenant land and contiguous land under the provisions of the said Act. .6. The petitioner had initially applied to the first respondent to grant her an exemption under Section 21(l)(b) of the said Act to retain the entire extent. .6. The petitioner had initially applied to the first respondent to grant her an exemption under Section 21(l)(b) of the said Act to retain the entire extent. The said application was rejected by the first respondent and proceedings were initiated for acquisition of the excess vacant land under the provisions in Sections 9 to 11 of the said Act. A notice under section 9(4) of the Act was served and an order for acquisition of 1,700 Sq.Mts. was passed on 30.12.1987. However, by an order dated 4. 1988 the said order was set aside in appeal under Section 33 of the Act and the third respondent was directed to dispose of the said matter after giving fresh opportunity to the petitioner. 7. Thereafter, by an order dated 30.9.1988 the third respondent determined that an extent of 1,700 Sq.Mts. held by the petitioner in the said area was excess vacant land liable to acquisition under the said Act. In arriving at such determination the authority held that the building in the petitioner’s portion ought to be disregarded. 8. An appeal was filed before the second respondent under section 33 of the Act and by an order dated 15. 1989 the second respondent dismissed the said appeal confirming the order dated 30.9.1988. Hence the present writ petition raising number of contentions by the petitioner. 9. On behalf of the respondents, the Deputy Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Madras has filed a counter- affidavit. After narrating the facts which led the petitioner to file this writ petition, the counter-affidavit says that the third respondent issued a letter dated 22. 1987 under section 9(4) of the Act and also a statement under Section 9(1) of the sMd Act. On receipt of the above notice, the petitioner did not furnish any details regarding construction made in the land after proper approval by the local body (i.e. prior to 8. 1976). The third respondent had inspected the land in Survey No.210/2A 1A.27 Thiruvanmiyur Village on 8. 1988 and 19. 1988. In the earlier report it was observed by the competent authority that the entire land is classified as dry and vacant land and there was no mention about the existence of the building. In the later inspection report, the competent authority has observed that there was a building. 1988 and 19. 1988. In the earlier report it was observed by the competent authority that the entire land is classified as dry and vacant land and there was no mention about the existence of the building. In the later inspection report, the competent authority has observed that there was a building. The petitioner in his statement under section 7(1) of the Act has stated that the land is vacant and there was no mention about the building in the partition deed, and the petitioner had never produced any evidence for the existence of the building and hence, it is ascertained that the building was constructed only after 1980. Hence, the third respondent treated the entire extent as vacant land as on 8. 1976 and has given her family eligibility of 2000 Sq.fts. 10. He has further submitted that the Government in its G.O.Ms.No.1466 Revenue dated 11. 1986 had rejected the exemption application of the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence in support of her claim that she had constructed a building prior to 8. 197_6jifter obtaining proper approval from the local body, the benefit of exemption could hot be granted to her. Moreover, there are no provisions in the Act which provided concession like appurtenant area or contiguous area to be given to a single building held by two registered holders. Since the major portion of the building lies in the holding of Tmt.Lalitha Bhandari, sister of the petitioner, the benefit has already been given to the said sister and the petitioner is not entitled for the said benefit. On these grounds, the respondent submitted before this court to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits. 11. Heard the learned senior counsel Mr.Sriram Panchu on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. They took me through4he affidavit, counter-affidavit and relevant documents produced in the writ petition. 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities below ought to have treated the premises of the petitioner as a separate dwelling unit and should have given the benefit of the Act. They took me through4he affidavit, counter-affidavit and relevant documents produced in the writ petition. 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities below ought to have treated the premises of the petitioner as a separate dwelling unit and should have given the benefit of the Act. He submitted that the authorities when they have given this benefit to the building of the petitioner’s sister which is part and parcel of the building of the petitioner were not justified in refusing the said relief on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that there was a building in the sa id plot. He further submitted that the building of the petitioner though the foundation and roof are one and the same is a separate and distinct unit as it has got separate door number, separate entry and occupied by a separate individuals. 13. He further contended that the same authorities below were not justified in rejecting the benefit on the ground that the said benefit has been given to the major portion of the building which is found in the plot belonging to the sister of the petitioner. The construction in the petitioner’s land should be treated as a building for the purposes of the Act and that the area of the building, the contiguous and appurtenant land should be excluded while arriving at the computation of the excess vacant land. The Government, while processing her exemption application was of the view that there was only one building and that since the major portion of the building was situated in the land belonging to the petitioner’s sister the petitioner ought not to be given the allowance for the building area and the appurtenant and contiguous area. The municipal authorities have assigned a separate door number to this portion, the same being No.5G. IV Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Madras. 14. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader took me through the orders of the authorities and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent and submitted that the orders passed by the authorities below do not suffer from any legal infirmity. He pointed out that since the benefit under the provisions of the Act has already been given to the sister of the petitioner who is the owner of the major portion of the house, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit. He pointed out that since the benefit under the provisions of the Act has already been given to the sister of the petitioner who is the owner of the major portion of the house, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit. He further submitted that there was no material before the authorities to hold that the premises in occupation of the petitioner is a separate domestic unit. He pointed out that there was no material produced by the petitioner to show when the said construction was put up and how she is entitled for the provisions of the Act. On these grounds, he submitted that this writ petition does not have any merit and it is liable to be dismissed. 115. Now let me consider the rival submissions. The short point on which these writ petition could not be decided is whether the portion of the building which is in the land of the petitioner could be considered as a dwelling unit. Dwelling Unit has been defined in Section 3(e) of the Act which is extracted below: “dwelling unit”, in relation to a building or a portion of a building, means a unit of accommodation, in such building or portion, used solely for the purpose of residence.” It is also pertinent to refer to the definition of “land appurtenant” found in Section 3(h) of the Act. “land appurtenant”, in relation to any building means an extent of five hundred square metres contiguous to the land occupied by such building and includes, - .(i) in the case of any building constructed before or under construction on the commencement of this Act with a dwelling unit therein, or, .(ii) in the case of any building proposed to be constructed with a dwelling unit therein and in respect of which the plan for such building has been approved by the appropriate authority before the commencement of this Act, an additional extent not exceeding five hundred square metres of land, if any, contiguous to the said extent of five hundred square metres of land: Provided that in relation to a multi-storeyed building, the extent of land contiguous to the land occupied by such multi-storeyed building permitted according to the plan approved by the appropriate authority shall be deemed to be the land appurtenant.” One of the grounds of rejection by the second respondent is that the existence of the quarters was not stated in the exemption application filed before the first respondent. The exemption application was filed seeking exemption for the entire property of the petitioner. Therefore, the omission to mention the quarters in the application should not disentitle the petitioner from claiming relief in respect of the same under the present proceedings. The building in the petitioner’s portion of the land was constructed at the same time and together with the building of the petitioner’s sister in her portion of the land. Both the buildings have a common foundation and a common roof and a dividing wall divides the two. Both these portions were constructed in the year 1974. The authorities have accepted that the petitioner’s sister’s building qualifies to be treated as a dwelling unit under the provisions of the Act, and hence, the authorities are not justified in doubting the existence of the petitioner’s building. Both the authorities below ought to have considered that the construction which belongs to the petitioner which is on the petitioner’s land deserves to be considered as a dwelling unit. It is a self contained room which has a separate entry, from the road. All the above facts were verified by the third respondent during the inspection of the premises. The petitioner’s watchman was residing in the petitioner’s portion. It is a self contained room which has a separate entry, from the road. All the above facts were verified by the third respondent during the inspection of the premises. The petitioner’s watchman was residing in the petitioner’s portion. Under these circumstances, the petitioner’s building ought to have been treated as a separate dwelling unit and the land occupied by the building and the appurtenant and contiguous land ought to have been given as the allowance under the said Act. 16. The Municipal authorities have assigned a separate door number. The petitioner has property receipts issued by the Corporation of Madras in respect of the construction on her land. The authorities have taken only the petitioner’s sister’s building into account and refused to treat the petitioner’s portion as a dwelling unit. It is manifestly clear that the petitioner’s portion was built along with the sister’s portion. 17. A Division Bench of this Court in a decision in R.K. Karunakaran and bros. v. State of Tamil Nadu , 1986 (I) M.L.J. 152 has observed as follows:- “Admittedly, notwithstanding the fact that the two separate portion of S.No.329 are not separately recorded in the names of the two independent owners, the fact remains that the area which has fallen to the share of each of the two families in question in the partition dated 7. 1939 in S.No.329 will be the land which is comprised in S.No.329. There is however, no jurisdiction in the assessing authorities to levy tax on urban land which is not owned by any person. In other words, only such urban land as is owned by each family will alone be liable to tax under section 5. A composite valuation and taxation for the purpose of section 5 in respect of S.No.329 is, therefore, clearly bad. A view similar to the one which we have taken above has found favour with the Division Bench of this Court in Messrs. Sarada Binding Works, Madras v. Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Madras , 1979 (92) L.W. 718 )”. 18. A view similar to the one which we have taken above has found favour with the Division Bench of this Court in Messrs. Sarada Binding Works, Madras v. Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Madras , 1979 (92) L.W. 718 )”. 18. Again in Shaheen Bequm v. Commissioner of Land Revenue & Urban Land Ceilings , AIR 1991 A.P.84, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held in Paragraph 10 as follows: “Shri T.Dasaradharamayya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, next contends that no allowance whatsoever was given by the second respondent in respect of the two sheds, erected by the Fire Service Department before the Act came into force for running an automobile workshop. Allowance prayed for by the petitioners was refused on the ground that the sheds were unauthorised structures. It is not denied that the sheds are not buildings. The ground of refusal to grant allowance to the petitioners in respect of the sheds it is urged by Sri.Dasaradharamayya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is wholly untenable. Reliance is placed upon the decision in M/s. Agra Concrete Pipe Co. v. Competent Authority, Agra , AIR 1987 All 232 : 1987 All LJ 803 (FB) wherein a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the entitlement of appurtenant land would not depend upon the conformity of the structure, with building regulations. In other words, once there are structures put up by the declarant before the Act came into force, the declarant would be entitled to the statutory allowance irrespective of the fact whether the structures are authorised or unauthorised. Respondents 1 and 2 should have therefore, granted a n allowance of the total plinth area of the two sheds and as additional area of 1,000 square metres towards appurtenant land.” Again in the same page, we will get the definition of “land appurtenant”, which reads thus: “The definition of the word ‘land appurtenant’ further indicates that if there are more than one dwelling units constructed on the same plot of land, land appurtenant to each dwelling unit has to be taken into consideration in determirriag the area of the vacant land. Even if the dwelling unit is in the nature of a servant quarter or outhouse, land appurtenant to it shall have to be left apart from the land appurtenant to the main building.” It is submitted that as the word ‘building’ has not been defined in the Act, the term must be understood in the comprehensive sense in which it is understood in urban areas (just as the term ‘buildings’ in S.9 of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, should be understood in the sense in which it is understood in the rural areas). As such, not only roofed structure will be building, but, whatever goes with or is considered to be part of ‘building’ is also included in the term ‘building’. Thus portico, drive-way or approach road, chabutra, courtyard, garage etc., are included in the term ‘building’, as these are incidental to or a portion of the building”. 18. The definition found in Section 3(e) of “dwelling unit” actually is in relation to a building or a portion of the building. ‘Building’ has not been defined under the Act. But, as building, is an essential part of the definition “dwelling unit”, means unit of accommodation in any building or a portion of the building, used solely for the purpose of residence. If two owners jointly owning a building and occupy separate portion of it, each portion becomes an accommodation. If the owner occupies part of a building and lets out the other part to the tenant he and the tenant are each in possession of the accommodation. If a building owned by a person is let out to two tenants occupying different portions of it, each portion is an accommodation. If a building consists of several shops which are let out separately, each shop is an accommodation. Thus, every portion of building occupied by a proprietor and every portion let out to the tenant and every portion sub-let to the tenant is an accommodation. Thus, in a building, there may be one accommodation or more accommodations. But, for the purposes of Section 3(e) of the Act, each of such accommodation is a unit used for the purpose of residence, then t is called dwelling unit. 19. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition, quash the order No.RC.J2/68726/88 dated 15. Thus, in a building, there may be one accommodation or more accommodations. But, for the purposes of Section 3(e) of the Act, each of such accommodation is a unit used for the purpose of residence, then t is called dwelling unit. 19. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition, quash the order No.RC.J2/68726/88 dated 15. 1989 of the second respondent confirming the order ROC 2802/86B dated 30.9.1988 of the third respondent and direct the third respondent to treat the petitioner’s building in Plot No.IV Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Madras-600 041 as a dwelling unit under the provisions of the Act and direct the respondents to pass suitable orders in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from today. No costs.