JIWANI KUMARI PAREKH Vs. SATYABRATA CHAKRAVORTY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE WEST BENGAL HANDICRAFT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sett Mannalal Surana Memorial Trust is the owner of a building situate at 7/ ID, Lindsay Street, Calcutta, one of the busiest Streets in Calcutta where the New Market is situated. The petitioner is the lessee of the said building from the said Trust. On February 25, 1958, a portion of the ground-floor premises in the said building admeasuring 4198 sq. ft (referred to herein after as "the said premises") was requisitioned by the Government of West Bengal under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the West Bengal Act,'). The purpose for which the said premises were requisitioned was establishing the main showroom of West Bengal Handicraft Development Corporation Limited, a West Bengal Government Undertaking. The said show room is called "Manjusha" and has become a landmark in Calcutta. In H. D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCC 337 this Court held that the provisions for requisition could be resorted to only where premises were required for a temporary purpose but not where they were required for a permanent purpose. If premises were required for a permanent purpose, they have to be acquired in accordance with law. Following upon this decision, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition No. 11222 of 1983 in this Court praying for a mandatory order directing that the premises should be derequisitioned and handed over to the petitioner. Certain interim applications were made in this Court and orders were passed thereon to which it is not necessary to refer in this judgment.

(2.) By an order dated January 16, 1990, certain directions were given to respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. The relevant portion of the said order runs as follows:

(3.) It is contended by Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner that as the respondents have not succeeded in obtaining any order from the Calcutta High Court in the said appeal or in acquiring any independent right to retain possession of the said premises within the period of nine weeks from January 16, 1990, as set out in the said order, they were bound to hand over the possession of the said premises to the petitioner and have committed contempt as they have deliberately failed to do so.