SUBHASH LAXMIDAS MAJITHIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner initially prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to withdraw the order of requisition dated 5th November 1955 in respect of the premises viz. a room on the ground floor of the building known as Patel Niwas, now known as Gomati Bhuvan, situate at 2-F French Road, (Dr. Atmaram Rangnekar Marg), Mumbai 400 007, and restore possession thereof to the petitioner. Since during pendency of the writ petition, the Maharashtra Act No. XVI of 1997 and later on the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 were enacted, the petitioner by way of amendment to the writ petition, prays for declaring the said Maharashtra Act No. XVI of 1997 and section 27 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 as unconstitutional. We note here that although in the writ petition by way of amendment the petitioner also prayed for declaring the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 as invalid and unconstitutional, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner did not press the said relief.

(2.) BEFORE we examine the constitutionality of the Maharashtra Act No. XVI of 1997 and section 27 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, we deem it proper to set out the relevant facts.

(3.) THE petitioner is landlord in respect of a building aforestated. By an order dated 5th November 1955, the Government, in exercise of its powers under the provisions of section 6 (4) (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (for short "requisition Act"), requisitioned one room on the ground floor of the aforestated building for public purpose, viz. for housing a Bombay State Government servant. The said premises were allotted to respondent No. 2 in his capacity as a State Government servant by an order undated (Exhibit-B ). It is petitioners case that the first respondent cannot hold the requisitioned premises for indefinite period and continuance of the requisitioned premises for inordinate length of more than 45 years is bad in law.