S R B GAIKWAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The building in which flat No. 8 is located and several other buildings once belonged to Messrs. Colaba Land and Mill Company Ltd. This flat and several other flats were obtained on lease by the Governor General in Council under a written agreement dated 21st June, 1944. The Garrison Engineer of the Defence Department is treated as the tenant on behalf of the Governor General. The Colaba Land and Mill Company Limited went into liquidation and the buildings were purchased in or about 1966 by a Housing Co-operative Society formed by the tenants of the flats therein under the name and style of Colaba Land Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the Society', from the Official Liquidator with the sanction of this Court. The Society had offered for sale all the flats to the Central Government held by it as tenant, in the same manner as were purchased by the other tenants by becoming a member of the Society and purchasing such shares as would justify member's occupation of the flats as such members. The Government, however, declined the offer, making it clear that sale of the building to the Society would be subject to the tenancy rights held by it. While sanctioning the sale, the High Court also confirmed the tenancy rights of the Government in all these fiats.

(2.) The petitioner was serving in the Army and as such public servant, the flat No. 8 in dispute was allotted to him on 8-8-1966. The petitioner was due to retire on 17-4-1967. He was, however, re-employed on 18-4-1967 for a further period of three years. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and this wife made an application for membership of the Society by reference to this very fiat of which he was in possession as the allottee from the Government, on 16-9-1966. Their membership was accepted on 1-7-1967 and this very flat was allotted by the Society to the petitioner and his wife on 21-7-1967 notwithstanding the purchase of the buildings by it being subject to the tenancy rights of the Government in the flats held by it and the said flat was neither surrendered by the petitioner to the Government nor could it be surrendered by the Government to the Society. It is not in dispute that the rent of this flat along with the rent of several other flats continued to be sent by the Garrison Engineer to the Society every month and the Society is receiving the same subject to its objections made clear in the correspondence.

(3.) On 20-10-1967 the petitioner applied to the Army Head Quarters for de-hiring the flat, i. e. giving up its tenancy rights therein. On 12-7-1968 the petitioner was called upon in this connection to give a certificate that he would not ask for re-employment. This requisition seems to have been made in accordance with the then policy to consider de-hiring the fiats, in cases of those who had retired and were not to be re-employed again. The petitioner furnished the said certificate on 17-7-1968. He also seems to have resigned earlier, which resignation became effective from 24-7-1968. It would have been necessary for him to vacate the flat on his resignation becoming so effective. The Army Head Quarters on 9-10-1968, however, directed staying of eviction proceedings pending disposal of his de-hiring application.