DINKER MANISHANKAR BHATT Vs. K C SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the validity of the order of requisition dated December 8 1961 passed under sec. 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of bungalow No. 56 in Brahman Mitramandal Co-operative Society Ellis Bridge Ahmedabad. The bungalow consists of certain rooms in the bungalow itself and a garage. This bungalow had been let out by the petitioner for the last several years. It was first let out to one Jayantilal Shah since deceased on a monthly rent of Rs. 90/and since his death the bungalow as also the garage remained in the occupation of his widow Subhadraben and the heirs and legal representatives of the said Jayantilal Shah. According to the petition the petitioner wanted the bungalow for his personal occupation as the petitioners wife was advised to stay in this bungalow situate as it is in Ellis Bridge area which is a more ventilated and open area than the area where the petitioner is at present residing as the petitioners wife is suffering from coronary insufficiency and also because his two sons are desirous of coming back to and staying in Ahmedabad with the petitioner. The petitioner therefore filed suit No. 1658 of 1959 in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad against the said Subhadraben who was in occupation as the tenant on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. The suit was compromised by the parties upon certain terms and conditions and the Court passes a decree in terms of the said compromise. The terms of compromise provided (1) Out of the suit property bungalow the possession of the ground floor Dehla or garage situated on the lower part should be handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff on 30-7-62; (2) the defendants have handed over the possession of the remaining suit properties to the plaintiff to-day; (3) the account of rent and mesne profits till to-day is settled and the remaining is allowed to let off. On October 31 1961 i. e. the day after the consent decree was passed the petitioner wrote to the Controller of Accommodation to the effect that the tenant had handed over vacant possession of the said bungalow to him except the garage. On November 4 1961 the petitioner received a letter from the Controller of Accommodation that the aforesaid intimation of vacancy had not been given in the prescribed form and that the same should be done. Consequently of November 14 1961 the petitioner sent to the Controller of Accommodation an intimation as required by subsec. (1) of sec. 6 of the Act in the prescribed form stating therein particulars and details of the premises in respect of which the vacancy had occurred as a result of the said consent decree and the fact of the tenant having delivered over vacant possession thereof to the petitioner. It would appear that at the instance of the petitioner the Controller of Accommodation gave a personal hearing to the petitioner and his advocate when certain further particulars were called for by the Controller and which particulars were thereafter communicated to him by a letter dated December 7 1961 On December 8 1961 the impugned order was passed in exercise of the power conferred by clause (a) of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 6 of the Act thereby requisitioning the premises in question for a public purpose namely for housing a State Government servant. The order was passed By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat and was authenticated by one Parmar the Accommodation Officer. It is this order which has been challenged in this petition.

(3.) Mr. Thakore for the petitioner raised six contentions challenging the validity of the impugned order. These contentions were-