B.N. Surendra vs G.A. Ajiwani

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.—This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by a landlord against the decision of the Court of Small Causes in House

Rent Appeal No. 272 of 1952, wherein the order of the Rent Controller refusing to evict the Petitioner''s tenant was affirmed.

The building in question is a residential building and the application for eviction was filed u/s 7(3-A)(1) that the landlord required it for his own

occupation. The defence of the tenant was that ""he was engaged in an employment or class of employment notified by the State Government as an

essential service"" and so no order of eviction could be passed against him u/s 7(3-A)(1). There is no dispute that the tenant was a member of the

Madras Veterinary Service on the date of the application.

The point, however, raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that the Respondent did not satisfy the requirements of Section 7(3-A)

referred to above, because the latter was under suspension. The argument is that a Government servant under suspension is not ""engaged"" in

Government service so as to be entitled to the benefit of the exemption. Both the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority, have held that

so long as a Government servant continues in service, he is for the purpose of the exemption u/s 7(3-A) ""engaged"" in Government service. Several

authorities were placed before me as to the status of a Government servant, who had been suspended from service. But there can be no doubt that

he still continues to be a Government servant.

The contention that the expression ""engaged"" in the section and in the notification in pursuance thereof means that the Government servant must

be in a position actively to perform the duties of his office is, in my opinion, unsound. So far as the notification under this section is concerned, it is

in these terms:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7(3-A)(i) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, His Excellency the

Governor of Madras hereby notifies that the following tenants shall be deemed to be engaged in an essential service for the purpose of the said

section, namely, (1) Employees of the State and Union Governments....

If the notification had alone to be construed, there could be no doubt that the Respondent is an employee of the State Government and continues

to be so notwithstanding that he is under suspension pending an enquiry into his conduct. Just to mention ah analogy, a Government servant on

leave, would certainly be an employee of the State and ""engaged in an employment"" notwithstanding that, so long as he continues on leave, is hot

required to nor can he be compelled to render any active service by way of discharging the duties of any office. The suspension, in the present

case, is not a punitive suspension, but one pending enquiry into his conduct. This might at any time cease and the Respondent would be enabled to

perform the duties of his office immediately the suspension ceases. In my opinion, the object of this provision would be frustrated if the construction

sought to be placed upon it by learned Counsel for the Petitioner were upheld. I am of the opinion that so long as the Government servant

continues to be a Government servant, i.e., till his dismissal, he is ""engaged"" for the purposes of Section 7(3-A)(i) in an employment and if that

employment is notified as an essential service by the Government, he is entitled to the exemption created by the section.

There are no merits in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner and the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs.