FIROZ NASARULLA SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 28.8.1990 (Annexure "C") passed by the Collector, Valsad under the provisions of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) When this petition was filed in the year 1990, the petitioner herein was holding the post of a Deputy Mamlatdar in the Revenue Department of the State Government and was posted in the Collectorate at Valsad. In the year 1966, when the petitioner was serving in the Valsad Collectorate, the petitioner had informed the Collector that the petitioner was desirous of occupying the premises known as Room No. 3 in "Baug-e-Jetun" Building in Valsad town. In September and October, 1966, the Collector, Valsad sent letters to Mohmad Husein Sema (original owner or the original landlord-father of respondent No. 2 herein) that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the premises in question and that since the premises were lying vacant, the same could not be let out to any one without the permission of the Collector, otherwise the owner would be liable to criminal prosecution. The original owner thereupon agreed to let out the premises to a Government servant. Hence, as per the Collector's order dated 5.11.1966, the petitioner occupied the premises on 8.11.1966.

(3.) The impugned order is challenged mainly on the ground that all that the Collector had done by the order date 5.11.1966 was granting permission to the landlord under Section 6(3) of the Act to let out the premises to the petitioner, but the Collector, Valsad had never requisitioned the premises under Section 6(4) of the Act with the result that the Collector has no authority to require the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises to the landlord. It is submitted that a contract of tenancy was entered into between the original landlord and the petitioner and that it was a private contract creating tenancy rights in favour of the petitioner which rights are protected by the Bombay Rent Act. Because the Requisition Act was applicable to the said premies, the landlord could not have let out the said premises without permission of the Collector and, therefore, the Collector had merely permitted the landlord to let out the premises to the petitioner by the aforesaid order dated 5.11.1966, but there was no requisitioning of the premises and, therefore, the Collector had no power or authority to exercise any powers under sub-section (4) of Section 6 or Sections 7 to 11 of the Act.