RAJKUMAR KUDILAL SEKSARIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original writ petitioner Kudilal Govindram Seksaria, since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives filed this writ petition challenging continuance of requisition of Room No. 13, situate at Govindram Seksaria Building, 2nd Khattaralli Lane, Thakurdwar, Mumbai and for direction to the first and second respondents to forthwith proceed with the derequisition of the said room and hand over the possession thereof to the petitioner and to direct the third respondent to vacate the said room. After the death of original petitioner, as noted above, his legal representatives were brought on record and by way of amendment in the writ petition they have challenged the constitutional validity of section 27 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

(2.) THE original petitioner was the owner of the building known as Govindram Seksaria Building. By order dated 22nd December, 1995, the Controller of Accommodation requisitioned room No. 13, situate on the first floor of the said building. The requisitioned room was allotted to one Mr. Bhikalal V. Shah, advocate vide allotment letter dated 3rd January, 1956. The said Bhikalal V. Shah vacated the said room in the month of July, 1963. By order dated 9th July, 1963, the Controller of Accommodation allotted the room in question to Shri M. Ramanand (Respondent No.3 herein). At the time of allotment, the said Shri M. Ramanand was working as Assistant Draftsman, office of the Executive Engineer, Division No.1, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Sachivalya, Mumbai. The compensation was fixed by respondent No.2 for the said room at Rs.10.99 per month. The allottee-respondent No.3 was very irregular in making compensation and was always found in arrears. It is averred that respondent No.2 was requested to derequisition the said room for quite some time but as no action was taken and then present writ petition was filed. Challenge to section 27 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short 'Rent Control Act') is based on the judgment of this court in the matter of Ranjit Premjibhai Gohil v. State of Maharashtra and others being beyond the competence of the State legislature.

(3.) THE controversy raised in the writ petition is squarely concluded by the Division Bench judgment of this court in Subhash Laxmidas Majithia. In para 6 of the report, after relying upon H.D. Vora and Grahak Sanstha Manch, the Division Bench held thus-