YOUSUF ALI ABDULLA FAZALBHOY Vs. M S KASBEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who are the trustees of a a trust owining a building known as "Fazalbhoy House" at New Marine Lines Bombay are challenging the continued requisition of four flats in the said building, being flats G and H on the 2nd floor and E and H on the 3rd floor.

(2.) Originally, under the Defence of India Act read with Defence of India Rules, Particularly R. 75A, 8 flats were requisitioned on 25-6-1942. They were flats E.F. G and H on the 2nd and the 3rd floors of the said building. The requisition was for housing police personnel. Subsequently flats F and G on the 3rd floor were released in favour of the allottee on the petitioners' consenting to take them as direct tenants, one in or about Feb., 1973 and other in Sept, 1973. In Nov., 1973, the patitioners filed a writ petition being Misc. Petition 1090 of 1973 in respect of the remaining six flats. In or about the end of 1974 or begining of 1975 a settlement was arrived at between the parties as a result of which flats E and F on the 2nd floor were released by the state of Maharashtra from requisition. In view of the settlement on 22-1- 1975 the petition was withdrawn.

(3.) Mr. Rana for the petitioners began his arguments by challenging the continued requisition of each of the flats relying on the facts peculiar to them, contending that in view of the facts the public purpose came to an end at one time or the other and continued requirsition at the date of this petition was invalid. This contention of Mr.Rana applied really only to three flats, namely. 2/H, 2/G, and 3/H and Mr.Rana fairly stated that as regards flat 3/E he was not in a position to challenge the continued requisition on facts. However, by way of an amendment which was granted by an order of 5th December, 1980 he challenged the continued requisition of all the flats on the ground that looking to the legislative provisions the requisition had automatically come to an end sometime in the year 1952 and that thereafter continued exercise of contol by the Govt. Over all the four flats was illegal and also amounted to violation of the fundamental rights of the petiotioners conferred under Arts. 19(1)(f)(g) and 31 of the constn. As this subsequent point is capable of disposing of the enitre petition, I am dealing first. However, since the petition is argued fully, I propose to deal with all the contintions advanced by Mr. Rana as well as the contentions advanced by Mr.Kanuga in reply to the contentions of Mr. Rana.