STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. N.M. SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above special civil application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the State of Maharashtra praying for a writ of prohibition or any other suitable writ, direction or orders restraining and prohibiting respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, from proceeding with R.A.E. Suit No. 5469 of 1966 filed by respondents Nos. 3 to 9 and for setting aside an interim injunction granted on April 17, 1969 by tho Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court.

(2.) THE facts leading to the petition may be briefly stated as follows : The subject matter of dispute between the parties is Room No. 13 on the 2nd floor of a building known as Damodar Sadan situated at Plot No. 514, Lady Jamshedji Road, Mahim, Bombay. The premises were requisitioned by the Government of Bombay under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, on August 13, 1954. They were allotted to S.T. Gadre who was the husband of respondent No. 3 and who was at that time an employee of the Bombay State Government. Gadre lived in the premises from November 1954. In April 1962 he committed defaults in payment of compensation and he was ordered to vacate the premises, but he paid the arrears and the Government did not enforce the orders. Under the arrangement with the Government the compensation payable by Gadre was rent which was due to the landlord. He was bound to pay it to the landlord every month as per letter dated February 14, 1955. In 1962 Gadre was appointed as the Personal Assistant to the then Chief Minister Shri Kannamwar. Though Gadre was to reside with the Chief Minister as part of his duty he was permitted to retain the premises in dispute by a letter dated December 28, 1962.

(3.) BUT respondent No. 3 continued to occupy the premises even after April 1966. An order was therefore passed on August 31, 1966 by the Accommodation Officer in exercise of the powers under Section 8B of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, directing respondent No. 3 to vacate the premises within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the order and deliver possession to the Government. But before the order could be executed, respondents Nos. 3 to 9 filed a declaratory suit being suit No. 5469 of 1966 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay claiming that they were tenants protected by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, because defendant No. 1 in that suit, tie now landlady had accepted them as tenants and the plaintiffs had become direct tenants protected by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. They also claimed an injunction restraining defendant No. 2, the Controller of Accommodation and defendant No. 8, the State of Maharashtra from evicting her from the suit premises. Immediately after filing of the suit, the plaintiffs took out a notice for interim injunction. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court who heard the said notice dismissed it on September 20, 1967 firstly, because no notice was given to the Government under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, and secondly, because the plaintiffs had not even pleaded that the premises were derequisitioned by the Government and the mere fact that the plaintiffs wore in possession of rent receipts did not make a prima facie case for de -requisition.