C. Sarojini vs Govt. of A.P. Rept. by Deputy Secretary to Government and the Authorised Officer, Rent Control Act

Honourable Mr. Justice Ramachandra Rao

The Petitioner is the landlady of the house bearing No. 3-5-1142 situated in the locality known as Ramkote in the city of Hyderabad. The building consists of two floors. The petitioner states that herself and her family are in occupation of the ground floor and a half portion of the first floor. The other half portition of the first floor was in the possession of one Shri Chaturvedi from 1973 as pet the allotment order passed by the Accommodation Controller under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1960 (hereinafter called ''the Act''). The petitioner was making representations for release of the portion under the occupation of Shri Chaturvedi for the personal occupation of her family members, particularly, her children who were abroad and who were returning to India after completion of their studies. On 1-1-1978, Shri Chaturvedi vacated the portion of the first floor under his occupation. On 9-4-1978, the Petitioner intimated the Accomodation Controller the vacancy that arose by reason of Shri Chaturvedi vacating the portion under his occupation. No orders were passed by the Accomodation Controller within 15 days or later intimating that the portion was required by the Government. The petitioner alleges that she occupied the said portion as no intimation was received from the Accomodation Controller.

At this stage, it is necessary to refer to another notice issued by the Accomodation Controller on 19-11-77 u/s 3 (1) (a) of the Act stating. "It has been brought to my notice that a portion in your building bearing No. 3-5-1142 situate at Ramkote, Hyderabad has been let out by you to Shri Raghupathi in contravention of Section 3 (1)(a) of the Act" and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken to prosecute her. The petitioner sent a reply on 1-12-1977 stating that she had not let out any portion of the house to any one other than Shri Chaturvedi and that the rest of the house was under control and occupation, and that, there was, therefore no contravention of any provisions of the Act.

The Accomodation Controller passed the impugned order in Memo No. 4936/Accom A2/77-4- dated 18-2-78 stating as follows:

The first floor portion in building bearing No. 3-5-1142 situated at Ramkote, Hyderabad consisting of two bed rooms one small room, one kitchen one varandah separate bath room and separate W.C. belonging to Smt. C. Sarojini is under unauthorised occupation of Shri W.N. Raghupathy in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the A.P., Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The portion is required for a purpose specified in sub-section (3) of section 3 of the aforesaid Act, and it is hereby allotted for the residential purpose of Shri N. Krishna Murthy, Accounts Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hirnayatnagar, Hyderabad.

The Estate Officer, Hyderabad is requested to effect summary dispossession of the unauthorised occupant, within a week, from the date of receipt of this memo and hand over possession of the portion to the allottee Shri. N. Krishna Murthy under intimation to this department.

A consequential order was passed on 23-2-1978 by the Estate Officer stating that Shri. Raghupathi would be summarily dispossessed if he did not vacate the premises voluntarily.

These orders are challenged in this writ petition. It is contended for the petitioner that, as the Accommodation Controller did not intimate her that the portion occupied by Shri. Chaturvedi was required by the Government, she occupied that portion and there was no contravention of the Act. It is not disputed that no intimation was sent to the petitioner by the Accommodation Controller that the portion under the occupation of Shri Chaturvedi was required for the purpose of the Government. Therefore, the petitioner was well within her rights in occupying the said portion and there was no contravention of the provisions of section 3 (1) (a).

It is contended by Shri. Swamy, appearing on behalf of the Government pleader, that the impugned order relates not to the portion which was under the occupation of Shri. Chaturvedi but to the portion in the occupation of Shri. Raghupathi, and that, as the said portion was let out to Shri Raghupathi without intimating the vacancy, the letting out of the said portion was in contravention of the provisions of section 3 of the Act.

The question for consideration is, whether there was any contravention of the provisions of the Act with regard to the alleged letting out of the portion to Sri Raghupathi. The petitioner denied that any portion was let out to Shri. Raghupathi. But the respondent appears to have relied upon some information received from the office of the Defence Research and Development Laboratory with regard to the amounts claimed by Shri. Raghupathi for reimbursement of the rental, in coming to the conclusion that a portion of the petitioner''s house was in the occupation of Shri W.N. Raghupathi. This information was not disclosed to the petitioner nor was she called upon to make representations with regard to that information or any other material on which the Accommodation Controller came to the conclusion that a portion of the building was in the unauthorised occupation of Shri Raghupathi.

Further, I find that the notice issued on 19-11-77 is itself vague and is not in conformity with the provisions of section 3 of the Act. u/s 2 (iii) "building" means any house or but, or part of a house or but, let or to be separately let for residential or non residential purposes. (rest omitted as not relevant for the purpose, of the case) According to this definition, a portion of the building is also a building. If so, the Accommodation Controller must specify precisely the actual portion of the building in respect of which notice has to be issued u/s 3 (1) (a)

The Act provides for penalties including prosecution for contravention of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Act have to be strictly complied with. In the instant case, the notice issued on 19-11-77 merely states that "portion in your building bearing No. 3-5-1142 situate at Ramkote. Hyderabad has been let out by you to Shri Raghupathi" but it does not specify which portion has been let out to the said Raghupathi. The petitioner has categorically stated that no portion of the house was let out to Shri Raghupathi except the portion let out to Shri Chaturvedi as per the order of allotment of the Accomodation Controller in 1973. It therefore became incumbent upon the Accomodation Controller to specify the exact portion of the building which was alleged to have been let out by the petitioner to Shri Raghupathi. The notice issued on 19-11-1977 did not specify the portion of the building let out to Shri Raghupathi. Only in the impugned order it is stated that the first floor portion consisting of two bed rooms, one small room, one kitchen, one varandah, separate bath room and separate we belonging to the petitioner was under the unauthorised occupation of Shri Raghupathi. As the particular portion of the building was not specified in the notice, the notice is defective and did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to make her representations with regard to the building in respect of which the impugned order was passed. When the notice itself did not set out the particular portion of the building (which also constitute a building) within the meaning of section 2 (3) with respect to which action was sought to be taken u/s 3, the Accommodation Controller has no authority to pass the impugned order setting out the particulars of the portion of the building. The impugned order is not only illegal but is also opposed to principles of natural justice and it cannot be sustained. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.