PARSHOTTAMDAS RATANLAL Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY NOW GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of a bungalow in Gujarat Middle Class Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Shantinagar Society) at Wadaj Road in Ahmedabad. It was purchased by him in 1942. In his petition he has stated that since 1942 he has been occupying the said bungalow with his family in the south wing there. It is also stated that he and his brother constitute a Joint Hindu Family and that he has no issue and his brother has three sons and seven daughters. Some of his brother's children according to the petitioner reside with him in the bungalow. One of the petitioner's brother's son got married some time before the petition and the petitioner constructed an additional bed-room on the terrace of the bungalow. That was done solely for the purpose of accommodation the newly married couple. The size of the room is 23 x 16 and the new construction cost him Rs. 7 0 In December 1959 the petitioner applied to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for permission to occupy the newly constructed bed. room. The petitioner has also stated in his petition that The Municipal Corporation while granting permission to occupy asked the petitioner to fill the form for permission of the second respondent to occupy the newly constructed bed-room for themselves and in view of that without understanding the legal implication thereof the petitioner applied to second respondent for permission to occupy the newly constructed bed-room somewhere in February 1960 in the prescribed form and the petitioner has stated in the said prescribed form that the newly constructed room is required by the petitioner for personal occupation. Then it appears that the Requisition Department made inquiries in the matter and a statement of the petitioner was recorded. On 10/03/1960 the second respondent the Accommodation Officer made an order requisitioning the room for public purpose viz. for housing a Bombay State Government Servant and the petitioner was required to hand over possession of the room to the Inspector. The petitioner thereupon came to this Court on this petition.

(2.) The order of requisition made on 10/03/1960 was under section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948 and the premises requisitioned are there stated to consist of "One room newly built on first floor...."

(3.) Three contentions have been urged before us by Mr. Nanavati who appears for the petitioner. Firstly it is said that the room cannot constitute premises within the meaning of section 6 (1) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948 It is said that there is no independent passage to the room there is no both-room or lavatory attached to the room and there is no kitchen available for the room. It is also said that the petitioner and the members of his family have for a long time been in occupation of what has been described as southern wing of the bungalow.