BABURAO SHANTARAM MORE Vs. BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before us is in occupation of two rooms Nos. 387 and, 388 in Barrack No. T-93 in Sion Dharavi camp in Greater Bombay. The camp consisting of several tenements was constructed and owned by the Government of India during the last World War for the use of the military. In 1948 the Government of Bombay now represented by the State of Bombay purchased the camp and entrusted the management thereof to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board-a body constituted by a Government Resolution. In the same year the Bombay Housing Board, the respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the Board), was established by the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Act No. 69 of 1948) as a body corporate, competent to acquire and hold property. The purposes of the Act included the management and use of lands and buildings belonging to or vested in the Board. The Board is authorized to frame and execute housing schemes. Under Section 3 (3) the Board is to be deemed to be a local authority for the purposes of that Act and the Land Acquisition (Bombay) Amendment) Act, 1948. Section 54(3) provides that all assets entrusted to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board shall upon a declaration made by the Government of Bombay vest in the Board. On 1st June 1949 the Government of Bombay having made the necessary declaration the Sion Dharavi Camp vested in the Board.

(2.) It appears that before the camp was made over to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board, certain persons including the petitioner had, without any authority or title occupied portions of the camp. An arrangement was made that the petitioner and the other persons who had gone into occupation of portions of the camp would pay such rent as would be fixed by the Government of Bombay. The Government of Bombay undertook to carry out certain repairs to the camp with the object of reconditioning the same and the petitioner and others also agreed to pay such rent as the Government would then fix. The petitioner and others signed a letter embodying the terms of the agreement. The petitioner's rent was originally fixed at Rs. 14 per month. The Government of Bombay then reconditioned the structures at considerable cost and the revised rent in respect of the rooms in the occupation of the petitioner worked out at Rs. 56-8 per month.

(3.) In or about February 1950, the Board served a notice on the petitioner calling upon him to quit and vacate the rooms in his occupation at the end of March 1950. An intimation was also given by that notice that if the petitioner agreed to pay the revised rent of Rs. 56-8 per month the Board would waive the notice to quit. The petitioner not having agreed to pay the revised rent the Board took proceedings against the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay to recover possession of the premises in his occupation. The petitioner took the plea, 'inter alia', that he was protected by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act 47 of 1947) popularly called the Bombay Rent Act. The Board, however, contended that its premises were exempted from the operation of the Bombay Rent Act by virtue of Section 4 of that Act which runs as follows: