HANIFABAI DADA TOFIQUE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the continued requisition of a room on the 2nd floor of a building situated at 113, Sarang Street, near Crawford Market, Bombay-3. The petitioner is the owner of that building.

(2.) The facts, as I have gathered from both the sides, arc these : On 29th April 1952 the then Government of Bombay requisitioned the said room "for a public purpose namely for housing Government Servant". On 10th April 1954 the said room was allotted to the 2nd respondent. Clause 8 of the allotment order required the 2nd respondent, in the event of his ceasing to be in Government service in Bombay for any reason whatsoever to immediately inform the Controller of Accommodation and hand over vacant possession of the said room to him within two months from the date on which his Government service ceased. The 2nd respondent retired from Government service on 31 st March 1980. On 28th February 1981 the petitioner wrote to the Government and informed it of the retirement of the 2nd respondent and called for derequisition of the said room on 8th April 1981 the Government commenced eviction proceedings against the 2nd respondent. In March 1981 this petition was filed. On 30th April 1981 the 2nd respondent's son was employed by the Government. on 8th September 1982 the said room was allotted to the 2nd respondent's son. The petition was then amended to challenge the allotment order dated 8th September 1982.

(3.) It was submitted by Mr Madekar, learned advocate for the petitioner, that the order of requisition had lapsed because the Government had not availed If the said room within two months of the retirment of the 2nd respondent. In this regard he relied upon Clause 8 of the allotment order, to which I have referred. He also submitted that the allotment order dated 8th September 1981 in favour of the 2nd respondent's son was mala fide and was intended to perpetuate the illegal occupation by the 2nd respondent of the said room after his retirement.