DAMODAR DAS AGRAWAL Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. Present petition has its advent to this Court impugning the order dated July 18, 1983, requisitioning the accommodation No. 177, Civil lines Jhansi under Section 3 of the U. P. Accommodation Requisition Act 1947, for the purposes of housing the office of Deputy Controller Civil Defence, Jhansi.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued at the bar that resort can be had to Section 3 (1) of the aforestated Act and accommodation requisitioned thereunder "only if it is needed or likely to be needed for any public purposes not being a purpose of the Union. " It was also canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner that the purpose for which the accommodation in question was requisitioned in the instant case, was a purpose connected with the affairs of the Union of India and as such, the District Magistrate was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 3 of the' Act. THE other ground on which the impugned order is sought to be assailed is that requisitioning in the instant case suffers from the bleemish of mala fide in that the veiled object was to stultify or for matter of fact, circumvent the effect of finality attaching to the judicial order dated 11. 4. 93 rendered in Rent Control Revision No. 215 of 1982, Damodar Das Agarwal v. Dy. Controller, Civil Defence Jhansi and another whereby the accommodation in question was directed to be allotted in favour of Sri O. P. Gupta, Superintending Engineer, (Tubewell) Jhansi and the Dy. Controller, Civil Defence, Jhansi was afforded one month's time to vacate the premises and deliver possession to Sri O. P. Gupta. 3, THE standing counsel appearing for the State Authorities, repudiated the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and contended that the impugned order had been necessitated and was passed in public interest and in the circumstances, warranted no interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the Central Government requisitions accommodations for public purposes connected with the affairs of the Union under Central Act 3u/1952. THE U. P. Act 25 of 1947, excludes requisitioning of accommodation for Union purposes. THE Defence of India and every part thereof including preparation for Defence and all such acts as may be conducive in times of War, to its prosecution and after its termination to effective demobilisation as mentioned in item No. l of the Union list, is in my opinion Comprehensive to include matters relating to Civil defence. It would be apposite to observe here that the Parliament has enacted Civil Defence Act 27 of 1968 by which all defence organisation in India are governed and all the officers and offices of Civil Defence come under the control of the Ministry of Defence. As such, requisitioning of accommodation in question by invoking the provisions of Section 3 of the U. P. Act wears the brand of illegality on its forehead. So far as second ground of attack is concerned. Suffice it to say that by efflux of time, the order dated 11. 4. 93 passed by the learned District Judge Jhansi in Rent Control Revision No. 215 of 1982, Damodar Das Agrawal v. Dy. Controller Jhansi and others must have been rendered otiose and in any case, the order requisitioning the accommodation could validly be made not withstanding the order dated 1. 4. 1983 whereby, the learned District Judge has directed the premises in question to be allotted in favour of Sri O. P. Gupta, Superintending Engineer, (Tubewell) Jhansi. THE allotment of premises in favour of a tenant under the provisions of the Rent Control Act could not impugne on subsequent order of requisitioning the accommodation or operate as an impediment in the way of requisitioning the accommodation under the appropriate provisions of Law for valid grounds. As such, the second ground on which the impugned order was sought to be assailed is unavailing to the petitioner in view of what has been stated supra. 5. THE impugned order is also susceptible of being quashed on the ground that before requisitioning the accommodation, no notice was given to the petitioner. In Madan Gopal Agarwal v. District Magistrate Alld. and others the Supreme Court while construing Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act. 1947, held that albeit section 3 did not contain express provisions for notice and hearing before making of-the requisitioning order, but having regard to the fact that requisitioning of the property leaves the owner shorn of the property and the right to hold and enjoy it as he likes, it was held by the Court that it would be difficult to assume that the Legislature would have intended to deprive the owner of its cherished right without notice or hearing. THE principles enunciated in the above noted case, would apply to the facts of the present case in that admittedly, no notice was given to the petitioner before requisitioning of the accommodation in question. 6. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. THE impugned order dated 18. 7. 1983 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Petition allowed. .