APAR PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. D K KARNIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the former landlords of premises requisitioned under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 against the order of fixation of reasonable compensation to be paid to them annually.

(2.) The premises in question are Flats Nos. 9-A and 10-A (two flats) in the Sunita building near Hangings Garden, Bombay 400 006. The buildings of which the two flats were part, belongs to a co-operative housing society. The area of the premises is 4700 sq. metres. By an order dated 23rd July, 1976, the respondent No. 2 requisitioned these premises on the ground that they were so liable to be requisitioned for the reason that these had not been occupied for use over a period of six months after the construction. The requisition was made for the Counsel General, Consulate General of United Republic of Egypt i.e. a Government allottee. Possession was also taken on the same day. On 13th October, 1977 the landlords' Petition No. 1084 of 1976 came to be allowed and the order of requisition for the said premises was set said by the High Court. After requisition, a notice under section 9-A of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued, inviting the landlord's claim for compensation in the prescribed form, within the stipulated time. In response to the said notice, the landlord - apart form, the writ petition filed for quashing the requisition, preferred his claim in the said prescribed form on 13th December, 1976 without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the said Misc. Petition No. 1084 of 1976. The claim preferred by the landlords was initially to the effect that the landlords instead of claiming monthly compensation for the requisitioned flats, their's being an industrial undertaking having having substantial borrowings for its business and being under the terms and conditions stipulated by the nationalised banks and other financial institutions, prohibited from having any investment in real property, not used for the purpose of business. It was submitted that it was not, therefore, possible for the company to own the said flats if it was not used by its directors for whom they are really purchased. In the circumstances, the first offer by the landlords was that the flats be purchased, either by the State Government or the allottee on a out-right basis for a price of Rs. 15,17,754-54 ps.

(3.) The second claim made by the appellants on 24th January, 1977 was that the compensation be paid at the rate of Rs. 14,899.50 paise per month, excluding the outgoings on the property as also the electricity and water consumption charges. The landlords submitted, alongwith their claim, a report prepared by their architects, one shri R.M. Nanavati with regard to this periodical compensation claimed in respect of the flats. That report is dated 4th February, 1977.