SETH SATNARIN GOENKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute, in this appeal against an award of an arbitrator, relates to the requisitioning of a three storeyed building, known as Sat Narain Building, with outhouses and extensive lawns, situated on Dina Nath Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.

(2.) Sat Narain building was first requisitioned by the Government, in May, 1944 but was released in June, 1945. It was again requisitioned from the 1st November, 1947. by the requisition order dated 21st October, 1947. The order was issued under the Delhi Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Ordinance, 1947. The ordinance was replaced by the Delhi Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Act, 1947. The owners of the requisitioned premises had filed a suit questioning the validity of the order of requisition. On discovering that there was some lacuna in the order of requisition, the Government had issued a fresh order of requisition on the 23rd June, 1948. The, possession of the requisitioned premises was taken over by the Government on the 5th July, 1948. The Government and the owners failed to agree with respect to the amount of compensation payable in connection with the requisitioning of the premises. The Government, therefore, appointed, by an order dated the 9th July, 1949, Shri Sunder Lal, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi as an arbitrator for fixing fair amount of compensation, payable to the owners in connection with the requisition. The owners of the requisitioned premises filed their claim tor compensation before Shri Sunder Lal. The details of the compensation, claimed, were given in paragraph 8 of the claimpetition, which are as under:-

(3.) The claim for compensation, filed on behalf of the owners-claimants, was contested on behalf of the Govt. A preliminary objection was taken that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to go into the question of damages as claimed in Clauses (b) to (g) of paragraph 8 of the claim-petition. The Govt. denied that the owners-claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000.00 per month. It was pleaded that the owners-claimants were entitled to compensation for use and occupation of the premises requisitioned at the rate of Rs. 227 per month and for the use of furniture at the rate of Rs. 26.10 annas per month. The Govt. denied that any substantial . damage had been caused to the fountain or to the garden. It was pleaded that it was. the responsibility of the owners-claimants to maintain the garden and that in spite of notices, they had failed to do so. It was, further, pleaded that a quite a number of trees in the garden were worthless and that a number of them had died. '