HOUSING DEVLOPMENT COMPANY LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. BY the present petition the petitioners are seeking delivery of possession of the premises which were requisitioned by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 for the occupation of their employee.

(2.) FEW facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioners' tenement, situated at Tata Colony, G. D. Ambedkar Marg, parel Tank Road, Mumbai was sought to be requisitioned in the year 1968. Subsequently the same was released in favour of the petitioners but on 7-10-1985 another premises, namely R-III/aradhana-A Wing/411 being Flat no. 411 at Aradhana were requisitioned under order of the same date issued in exercise of powers under Section 6 (1) of the Bombay Land requisition Act, 1948. The said flat was allotted in favour of the respondent No. 4 herein by order dated 28-10-1985 issued by the requisition/allotment Officer. The respondent no. 4 herein occupied the premises consequent to the said order of allotment immediately after issuance of the said order. The respondent No. 4 retired from the Government services in May, 1992, however, continued to be in possession and occupation of the said flat even thereafter. Meanwhile, there was a fire at the corporate office of the petitioner No. 1 at Eruchshaw building, 4th floor, D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai wherein the records pertaining to the requisition of the said flat and the related documents were destroyed. The respondents having failed to vacate the premises and to deliver the possession of the premises to the petitioners inspite of the retirement of the respondent No. 4 and no other Government employee having come to reside therein thereafter, nor there was any allotment in favour of any other government employee, the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking the relief as stated above.

(3.) THE respondents on their part do not dispute the fact of requisitioning of the premises or the allotment of the flat for the occupation of the respondent No. 4 under the order of 28-10-1985. It is also not disputed that the respondent No. 4 retired from the government services in May, 1992.