HANIFABAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the continued requisition of a room on the 2nd floor of a building situated at 113, Sarang Street, near Crawford Market, Bombay - 3. The petitioner is the owner of that building.

(2.) THE facts, as I have gathered from both the sides, are these: On April 29, 1952 the then Government of Bombay requisitioned the said room 'for a public purpose namely for housing Government Servant'. On April 10, 1954 the said room was allotted to the second respondent. Clause 8 of the allotment order required the second respondent, in the event of his ceasing to be in Government service in Bombay for any reason whatsoever to immediately inform the Controller of Accommodation and hand over vacant possession of the said room to him within two months from the date on which his Government service ceased. The second respondent retired from Government service on March 31, 1980. On February 28, 1981 the petitioner wrote to the Government and informed it of the retirement of the second respondent and called for derequisition of the said room. On April 8, 1981 the Government commenced eviction proceedings against the second respondent. In March 1981 this petition was filed. On April 30, 1981 the second respondent's son was employed by the Government. On September 8, 1982 the said room was allotted to the second respondent's son, The petition was then amended to challenge the allotment order dated September 8, 1982.

(3.) MR . Lokur, learned Counsel for the respondents, stated that the Government's accommodation department had not been aware that the second respondent had retired from service until the petitioner so informed it by his letter dated February 28, 1981, and that immediately thereupon eviction proceedings against the 2nd respondent had been commenced. He submitted that it was the policy of the Government to allot premises to those Government servants one or other of whose parents had, until retirement, been in Government service and had been in occupation of the same premises. In his submission, therefore, the allotment to the second respondent's son by the order dated September 8, 1982 was valid and the said room was still required for serving the public purpose of housing a Government servant.