THAM CHEW CHONG Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 and her mother, the petitioner No. 2, are owners of two adjoining flats in a building called 'Navyug Nivas', at Lamington Road, Bombay. They purchased the flats from 'Messrs. Navyug Builders' and secured possession thereof in 1962. Soon thereafter, the various flat owners in the building formed a Co -operative Housing Society called 'Navneet Co -operative Housing Society Limited'.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 left for Hongkong in June 1963. In March 1964, a part of flat No. 46 -B, belonging to her, was given on a leave and licence basis to two persons: Adi Jehangir Irani and H. Ahmed. On July 29, 1964, the Accommodation Officer of the respondents the State of Maharashtra issued a notice to the petitioners and to the licensees, calling upon them to show cause why flat No. 46 -B should not be requisitioned under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, herein called 'the Act'. The petitioner No. 2 appeared before the Accommodation Officer and filed a written statement saying, inter alia, that the flat had not fallen vacant at any time, that the two licensees were permitted to occupy a portion of the flat for a brief while only and that the two adjoining flats Were purchased by the petitioner No. 2 for the use of all the members of her family. On October 8, 1964, the Accommodation Officer wrote a letter to petitioner No. 1 saying that he had come to the conclusion that it was a fit case for requisitioning the flat. On September 13, 1966 the impugned order was passed stating that on inquiry it was found that flat No. 46 -B had become vacant in the month of June 1963 and requisitioning the flat in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 6(4)(a) of the Act, for the public purpose of housing a Maharashtra State Government Servant. On September 21, 1966, another order was passed under Section 11(1) of the Act, authorising an Inspector in the office of the Controller of Accommodation to take possession of the flat. The execution, of that order was stayed by this Court while admitting this petition. The petitioner No. 2 had preferred an appeal to the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forests Department, but by a letter dated October 7, 1966 she was informed that the Government did not consider it necessary to cancel the requisition order.

(3.) IT is not alleged, much less shown, that flat No. 46 -B was ever let to any one. In paragraph 13 (c) of the petition, there is a specific averment that the flat was neither let nor intended to be let. In paragraph 13 (e) it is stated that the petitioners were in possession of the flat as owners and the flat was neither let nor was it intended to be let. In regard to these averments, all that the Accommodation Officer has stated in his reply affidavit is that 'it is denied that the said premises are not premises within the meaning of Section 4(3)' of the Act. What is more, it is stated in paragraphs 7, 8 and 24 of the reply affidavit itself that the flat was permitted to be occupied by licensees.