D. Durai vs Government of Tamil Nadu and another

Mohan, J.—The impugned order dated 1st April, 1976 merely revokes the licence granted in favour of the writ petitioner, and he is asked to hand over possession within seven days. What is now contended by Mr. Srinivasagopalan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, is that before calling upon to surrender possession, the writ petitioner was not given notice and further the Government are not correct in their view, that having regard to the provision of S. 3 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, that the petitioner has become ineligible for occupation of the house because he is employed in Pallava Transport Corporation, which is a quasi Government organisation. I am unable to see any substance in either of these contentions. The question of notice will not arise in the case of revocation of licence. Even otherwise the petitioner is not in a position to state as to what prejudice has been caused to him by the non-issue of notice. It is not his case that he is not employed in the Pallava Transport Corporation. That is the only fact which requires to be ascertained. Therefore, in my view, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused by the failure of issue of notice. Once a house is requisitioned by the Government under S. 3 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, it is a the Government which become the statutory tenant and the allotters are only licensees. It is open to the Government under those circumstances to extend the benefit under S. 3 (3) to only the Government servants and deny such benefits to the servants who are employed in the quasi-Governmental organisation. That is what is done. Finally on behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the seven days time given for vacating the premises is hardly adequate. This is a matter for which the petitioner has to move the Accommodation Controller and exercising writ jurisdiction, I cannot grant time.

For all the above reasons this writ petition is dismissed.