RAJA BAHADUR SIR BANSILAL Vs. C.R. DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the refusal of granting of a certificate by the respondent under the provisions of Sub -sections (3A) and (3B) of Section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act LVII of 1947. The relevant facts are as follows: -

(2.) THE petitioners are owners of an immoveable property situate at Warden Road, Bombay. The petitioners' case is that they reasonably and bona fide required possession of the immovable property for the immediate purpose of demolition and that the demolition was to be made for erecting a new building. The petitioners, accordingly, by an application dated November 5, 1958, applied for a certificate under Section 13(3B) of the Act. The respondent being the tribunal entitled to give such a certificate by his letter dated November 29, 1958, stated that the petitioners were not entitled to have the certificate having regard to the provisions of Section 13(1)(hh) of the Act. The petitioners thereupon agitated the matter before the respondent and the respondent once again considered the petitioners' application. The respondent ultimately by his letter dated March 12, 1959, wrote to state as follows: - The existing structure consists of more than two floors,.. .Your contention that the rooms should be considered as an architectural feature only...is not acceptable. Under the circumstances, it is regretted that, your case cannot be considered for the issue of a certificate for demolition by the Tribunal under Section 13(3B) of the above Act, as it does not comply with the requirements of the Section 13(1)(hh) of the above Act.

(3.) THE petitioners' contention in the petition is that their property consisted of 'not more than two floors' as required under Section 13(1)(hh) of the Act. The petitioners' main contention is that the question whether their property consisted of 'not more than two floors' is a question which under Section 13 of the Act is liable to be determined solely by Court and that decision of the same is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal mentioned in Section 13(3A) and 13(3B) of the Act. The petitioners, therefore, contend that the refusal of the respondent to grant to the petitioners a certificate as requested by them on a finding that the petitioners' property was more than two floors is in excess of jurisdiction and/or without jurisdiction altogether. In so far as the respondent has failed to consider the petitioners' application regarding the rest of the matters liable to be determined by the respondent under the provisions of Section 13, the respondent has failed to discharge the statutory duty and obligation as cast on him under the Act. The petitioners, therefore, seek relief directing a writ of mandamus against the respondent to consider the petitioners' application and dispose the same in due course of law.