P.C. Cherian, represented by Mr. Venkatesan, Advocate Receiver vs The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home (AC-1) Department, Madras-9 and 12 others

Nainar Sundaram, J.—The learned Single Judge upheld the exemption granted in favour of respondents 4 to 13 under S.29 of the Tamil

Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ''The Act''). This writ appeal is directed against the order of

the learned Single Judge. Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that on the ground that the landlords

could not invoke the provisions of the Act, there could not be an exercise of power of exemption under S. 29 of the Act. The premises in question

has been let out for nonresidential purposes. The landlords require the premises for residential purposes. It is well settled that the remedy of

exemption under S.29 of the Act is not a substitute for remedies available to a landlord for eviction under the Act itself. But on the other hand, if

the remedy under the Act is not at all available to him, there will be a justification for according exemption under S.29 of the Act if a case therefor

is made out�vide the pronouncement of a Bench of this Court in P.N. Raju Chettiar v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary,

Home Department (Accommodation Controller) and others 1979 (I) L.L.J. 249. The pronouncements of this Court have not countenanced the

possibility of a remedy for eviction under the Act for the requirement of the landlord for residential purposes of a premises demised for non-

residential purposes. It would be a different matter if the premises is both residential and non-residential or predominantly residential. Such is not

the position here. In the Bench decision referred to above, this aspect has been adverted to and finding that the provisions of the Act could not be

of any help to the landlord, the exemption accorded was upheld. We are not persuaded to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

Hence the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.