Skip to content


M.D. Saraswathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 3903 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1973Mad132; (1973)1MLJ3
AppellantM.D. Saraswathi
RespondentState of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Cases Referred(Mad.) (Arul Mary v. Accommodation Controller) and
Excerpt:
- - if the petitioner satisfied the elements which taken together would justify her request for occupation of the premises in the possession of the government under the provisions of the act, then normally the first respondent should act and release, unless there are any other exceptional or relevant circumstances which can compel them to act otherwise. accommodation controller) and in this petition as well......order which runs as follows:--thirumathi m. d. saraswathi is informed that her request for release of premises no. 26 kolandaivelu street, purasawalkam, madras has not been complied with. it is as against this, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. the petition has to be allowed on two grounds. firstly, the order of the first respondent is non-speaking and it does not appear whether the first respondent has indeed applied its mind to the facts and come to a decision which is just and which is in accordance with law. secondly, the observation of the accommodation controller which weighed with the first respondent, that the government servants find it difficult to get premises in this locality and therefore a requisitioned premises ought not to be released, is a ground which.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Premises No. 26 Kolandaivelu St., Purasawalkam, Madras, was under Government tenancy. The petitioner is admittedly residing in a rented building. On 7-7-1969 the petitioner applied for the release of the premises for her own use and occupation. When that request was being enquired into, the then allottee vacated and handed over possession of the premises on 24-7-1969. The premises was once again offered for allotment on 25-7-1969. Pending a decision on the application for release, which was by then pending with the appropriate authority, it is said that the Accommodation Deputy Tahsildar inspected and reported that the petitioner was indeed residing in a rented premises. But, the Accommodation Controller, as is seen from the affidavit, rejected the request for release on the ground that Government servants were finding it hard to got accommodation by private lease in that locality. Based on such recommendation and observation of the Accommodation Controller, the first respondent passed the impugned order which runs as follows:--

Thirumathi M. D. Saraswathi is informed that her request for release of premises No. 26 Kolandaivelu Street, Purasawalkam, Madras has not been complied with.

It is as against this, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The petition has to be allowed on two grounds. Firstly, the order of the first respondent is non-speaking and it does not appear whether the first respondent has indeed applied its mind to the facts and come to a decision which is just and which is in accordance with law. Secondly, the observation of the Accommodation Controller which weighed with the first respondent, that the Government servants find it difficult to get premises in this locality and therefore a requisitioned premises ought not to be released, is a ground which is not available to the first respondent in law for summarily rejecting bona fide application by owners requesting for release of their premises for their own personal occupation. If the petitioner satisfied the elements which taken together would justify her request for occupation of the premises in the possession of the Government under the provisions of the Act, then normally the first respondent should act and release, unless there are any other exceptional or relevant circumstances which can compel them to act otherwise. Instead of dealing with the merits further, I am inclined to set aside the other which is non-speaking and which is based on irrelevant consideration and allow this writ petition.

3. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. But, the subject-matter viz., the letter of request by the petitioner for release of the premises as owner thereof, for her personal occupation, is remitted to the first respondent for being dealt with in accordance with law and in the light of my observations in W. P. No. 2138 of 1970 (Mad.) (Arul Mary v. Accommodation Controller) and in this petition as well.

4. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //