RAJESH G DESHPANDE Vs. SANDEEP HIMATLAL DOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions, the question arises of interpretation of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control, Bombay Land Requisition and the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) (Amendment) Act. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which has come into force from 7th December 1996. The preamble of the Act specifically recites that as both Houses of the State Legislatures were not in session, the Government has promulgated an Ordinance on 7th December 1996 amending the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 and the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955.

(2.) AS per the statement and object of issuing the said Ordinance, it has been, inter alia, mentioned that it was mainly to give protection to the allottees of 604 residential premises and 19 non-residential premises in Greater Bombay and 138 in other Districts which were still under requisition and which include requisitioned premises allotted to Government servants who are still in Government service and others. It is also mentioned that due to acute shortage of accommodation with the government and astronomical rise in the price of property in Bombay, it would not be possible for the Government to provide suitable alternative accommodation to all such allottees and that landlords have approached the Courts for de-requisition of the premises in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Grahak Sanstha Manch & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 SC 2319 and in view of the fact that the State Government is desirous of releasing the premises from requisition on or before 26th December 1997, it was decided to find out a solution to the grave situation and to give statutory protection to the allottees of the requisitioned premises. It has been further mentioned that the landlords have already approached the Courts for seeking eviction of the allottees of the requisitioned premises and possibility of others also approaching Courts for such orders cannot be ruled out and it is also considered expedient to provide in the proposed Act that such transfer of statutory tenancy rights on the allottee shall not be effected by any eviction orders passed by the Court on or after 11th June 1996, being the date of the Government decision to enact such legislation.

(3.) THEN Section 15B provides for "deemed tenants". For the non-residential premises, under sub-section (1)(b), the State Government would be deemed tenant. Sub-clause (1)(b) provides that on the date of coming into force of this Act (7th December 1996), the Government allottee as referred to in Clause (b) of Clause (1A) of Section 5 shall be deemed to have become the tenant of the landlord. It further provides that this would be the result notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 or any other law for the time being in force or any contract or any judgment, decree or order of any Court on or after 11th June 1996. In the present matters, we are concerned with the last phrase of the said clause i.e. any judgment, decree or order of any Court passed on or after 11th June 1996. The result is, if the Court has passed any order on or after 11th June 1996 directing the government to de-requisition the premises or to evict the allottee of the requisitioned premises, yet a Government allottee would be entitled to be the deemed tenant of the landlord under the Rent Act.