1. The Petitioner is the owner of a residential premises bearing door No 43. Arundale Street. Mylapore, Madras-4. He has applied to the second respondent under Section 3-A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and rent Controller, Act 18 of 1960 for the release of the rear Portion of the said residential premises to enable him to accommodate his daughter. That application was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 26-4-1982 on the ground that if the 'landlord' really 'wants to a portion to his daughter he can very well take steps to evict any one of the private tenants and accommodate his daughter'.
2. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated 26-4-1982 preferred an appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent under G.O. Ms.No.3074 Home (AC.1) Department dated 8-12-82 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the second respondent stating that the landlord owns three other houses other than the petition premises and that the married daughter and son in law for whose occupation the release is sought for are occupation the release is sought for are not members of the landlords family.
3. It is under these circumstances The petitioner has come to this Court praying the court for issue of a with of certiorarified-mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 8-12-1982 and to direct the release of the rear portion of the residential premises No.43 Arundale Street, Myslapore, Madars-4
4. Mr. K. V. Rajan learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons for rejecting the application for the release of the premises in question given by the second respondent and also by the first respondent on appeal are totally unsustainable in law and opposed to the principles laid down by this Court in several decisions. The learned counsel further submitted that the claim the landlord-petitioner that he requires the portion of the premises to accommodate his daughter and son-in-law and the circumstances under which the saw claim was made are not in dispute. While so, the rejection of the application on untenable grounds suffers from error apparent, on the face of the record and liable to be set aside as prayed for in the writ petition.
5. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and, 2, Learned Government Advocate submitted that Section 2(6-A) defines 'member of his family' which includes daughter and this means only unmarried daughter and will not include married daughter and therefore the order passed by the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent is in accordance with law. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the other reason given by the first respondent that there are other buildings owned by the landlord apart from the building in question and that the landlord can accommodate his daughter and son-in-law in the other buildings if necessary, by evicting the private tenants is also in accordance with law.
6. None of the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate is acceptable. This court repeatedly has taken the view that it is not for the Government or the private tenants as the case may be to dictate the landlord as to which portion he must choose for his personal accommodation or for the accommodation of any member of his family .In C.R.Parthasarathy v.The Accommodation Controller Madras-2. : (1974)1MLJ1 Ramaprasada Rao,J. has held as follows:
'As the law was clear that it was the landlord or landlady who had the voice and the choice to make in the matter of choosing one of his or her many houses, the Government had no part to play in that field of activity which was exclusively that of the landlord.'
Again in Dr. K. Ramanujam v. Accommodation Controller. Madras. 1975 88 MLW 618. Ramanujam.J.. has taken a similar view after referring with approval, another judgment of Ramaprasad Rao. J.. in Mallalkodiammal v. Government of Tamil Nadu. : AIR1972Mad132 . The headnote in Dr. K. Ramanujam v. Accommodation Controller. Madras 1975 88 MLW 618 is as follows:
'Where an application by the owner of a building for release, was rejected by the Accommodation Controller on the grounds: (1) the landlords unemployed son and his daughter are occupying the rear portion of the premises and the accommodation available in the above portion is sufficient for their needs and (2) the landlord owns another house at No. 8 Neelakantha Meha Street and if he is keen in Providing better accommodation to his son and daughter, he could have taken action to vacate the tenant in the above premises was accommodate his son and daughter, therein.'
'The two reasons given for the rejection of the petitioner's request for release of the building for his occupation are not tenable. It is for the petitioner to decide as to what accommodation or what house he should have for purposes of his residence or for the residence of the members of his family and he or the members of his family cannot be forced to live in a portion of the premises against their will.'
In the light of the clear and consistent Pronouncement of this Court, it is too late in the day to contend that the reason given by the respondents 1 and 2 that the landlord can choose other buildings to accommodate his daughter and son-in-law, if necessary by evicting the private tenants is in accordance with law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a judgment of this Court reported in Annamalai & Co. v. Sital Achi. : (1975)1MLJ337 in support of his contention that notwithstanding the fact that the landlord is in occupation of a residential building he can apply under Section 3-A of the Act for release of building for the occupation of any member of his family if that family member is not in occupation of any other residential building of his/her own in the city. This position has not been challenged by the learned Government Advocate.
8. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate that a married daughter will not come within the view to the definition of 'member of his family'. Section 2(6-A) defines 'Member of his family' as follows:
' 'Member of his family' in relation to a landlord means his spouse, son, daughter, grand-child or dependent parents.'
9. The learned Government Advocate has not cited any authority in support of his contention. A reading of the definition will show that there is nothing restrict the meaning ordinarily given the word 'daughter' which occurs in the definition. A daughter will not cease to be so by reason of marriage. If the contention of the learned Government Advocate is to be accepted the Court will be adding something which is not in the statute. In this connection, it may usefully be noted that wherever the legislature wanted to make a distinction between married daughter or unmarried daughter or unmarried minor daughter, it has expressly made its intention clear. for example. one can look into the definition of 'family' in the Land Ceiling Act, Urban Land Tax Act, Urban Land Ceiling Act etc. Therefore. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate. As the impugned orders are based on unsustainable reasons the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
10. In the result the writ petition is allowed with costs Counsel fee Rs. 250.
11. Petition allowed.