DAWOODALI RAHEMATULLA VERSEY Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY two orders dated 23 January, 1948, the Government of Bombay in exercise of -powers conferred by Sub-section. (4) of Section 4, Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance, 1947, requisitioned 8 out of 9 rooms in Chawl No. 200 and 9 rooms in Chawl No. 201 of 'versey Colony' at Gundavali, Andheri. By the same orders the Government directed the Inspector of Land Requisition to allot the rooms to the tenants whose names were mentioned in a list supplied to that officer, on such conditions 'as may be found necessary'. The orders were modified by order dated 30 January, 1948, and all the 18 rooms in the two chawls were requisitioned and were allotted to the tenants in occupation thereof. The terms of allotment in so far as they are material were :

(2.) THE allottees contended that the condition of allotment requiring them to pay Rs. 25 per month was not binding as the amount was excessive and unreasonable. They requested the Compensation Officer to ascertain reasonable compensation. The Compensation Officer thereupon issued notice to the owner under Rule 4 (c) of the Bombay Land Requisition (Determination of Compensation) Rules, 1949, requiring him to produce documentary or other evidence in support of his claim for compensation. The owner thereupon appeared before the Compensation Officer and contended that the Compensation Officer had no jurisdiction to enter upon any inquiry. The Compensation Officer held that the "rent terms" dated 30 January 1948, "and contained in para. 5 making the allotment conditional, subject to such condition as may be imposed by Government thereafter in similar cases", showed that the "rent terms" arrived at by the Collector were not final and the Compensation Officer who was authorised by the Government under Section 8 (1), Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, had a right to proceed with the inquiry determining compensation. The Compensation Officer recorded the evidence led before him and came to the conclusion that the owner was charging rent from his tenants at the rate of Rs. 5 per month in respect of each room in the year 1942-43. Having regard to the expenses incurred for making repairs and having regard to the area of the rooms and the amenities provided by him and after taking into account the order of the Collector which had been acquiesced in by the allottees, ' by his order dated 24 January 1951, the compensation Officer declared under Rule 4 (3) of the Bombay Land Requisition (Determination of Compensation) Rules, 1949, that the fair and reasonable rate of compensation for each of the 18 requisitioned rooms was Rs. 10 per month in respect of rent plus Rs. 3 per month as water charges plus permissible additional Municipal General Tax, and ordered that the same be paid to the owner from the date of occupation of each room by the respective tenant, as ordered by Government on January 30, 1948, subject to the condition that the owner executes an agreement in form "b" prescribed for the purpose under the rules. The owner has appealed to this Court under Section 8, Clause (3) of the Act.

(3.) THE conclusion of the Compensation Officer that Rs. 10 per month is fair rent having regard to the circumstances, has not been challenged before me. But three points have been urged by counsel for the owner in support of the appeal : (1) That the proceedings commenced at the instance of the allottees were not maintainable; (2) that the Government having requisitioned the premises and having rented the same to the allottees on certain terms and conditions the conditions constituted a contract between the allottees and the owner and the allottees were bound by that contract; and (3) The ascertainment of compensation cannot be sustained because it is based on erroneous principles.