CHATURBHUJ HOTCHAND ASARPOTA Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order passed by the Compensation Officer, Bombay and the Bombay Suburban District, in respect of certain premises which were requisitioned under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.

(2.) It appears that certain premises were, according to information received by Government, un-authorisedly occupied by Mr. Teheramani since March 1943. The Government therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 6, Bombay Laud Requisition Act of 1948, requisitioned those premises by an order dated 10th November 1948. These premises were then allotted to one Shri Chaturbhuj Hotchand by an order of the same date. As the unauthorised occupant did not vacate the premises, the order was enforced by breaking open the lock on 27th November 1948. The applicants-landlords in whose name the property stood put in a claim for compensation at RS. 60 per month. This claim was decreed by the Compensation Officer who considered that the fair and reasonable rate of compensation for the requisitioned premises should be Rs. 60 per month, and he directed that the applicants bo paid accordingly. The present appeal has been filed not by Government, nor by the claimant whose claim was decreed in full, but by Chaturbhuj Hotchand to whom the premises were allowed on 10th November 1948, and it is his contention that the Compensation Officer has erred in fixing the compensation at Rs. 60 per month which the appellant has to pay by way of rent.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Taraporewala that the present appeal, at the instance of the allottee, is not competent and this submission has the support of Mr. Chitale who has appeared for the State of Bombay. We are of the opinion that this submission must succeed, and that the present appeal is not competent.