RATILAL VIRCHAND SHAH Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of a requisition order dated May 30, 1958, made in pursuance of the Bombay Land Requisition Act and for appropriate reliefs in that connection.

(2.) THE premises in question are plot No. 6, 2nd floor of building known as 'Durga Villa', situate at 77 -B, Ranade Road, Dadar, Bombay. The petitioner's case is that he had been a tenant of the premises since 1943 and had been residing at the premises continuously right up to the date of the impugned order. In June 1957 the petitioner was called upon to give information regarding these premises to the Accommodation Department. In August 1957, a show cause notice in connection with the enquiry contemplated under the Act was served on the petitioner. In pursuance of that notice, the petitioner gave such information as was required to the Department. By an order dated February 8, 1958, a copy whereof is annexed as exh. A to the petition, after the recital that on enquiry it was found that the petitioner had not actually resided in the premises for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the order, a declaration was made that the petitioner had not actually resided in the premises for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the order and the premises were requisitioned. By subsequent correspondence and representations made at an interview with the Deputy Minister for Revenue, the petitioner contended that the requisition order should not be given effect to. By an order dated March 24, 1958, being exh. B to the petition the premises were derequisitioned.

(3.) THE grounds which are pressed before me are contained in sub -paras. 8(a) and 8(e) of the petition. The other grounds are not pressed seriously before me. In para. 8(a), after reciting the derequisition order dated March 24, 1958, it is submitted that the effect of the derequisition order was to effectively efface and wipe out the requisition made under the requisition order dated February 8, 1958, and the respondent ceased to have any jurisdiction to issue a fresh order of requisition on the basis of continuous non -residence for a period of six months prior to February 8, 1958. The ground in sub -para. 8(e) is that the effect of the derequisition order was that the authorities had come to the conclusion that there was no case for requisitioning the said premises or that there was no actual non -residence for a continuous period of 6 months of the petitioner in the premises and that it was not permissible for the authority to come to a different conclusion, once having decided the question in issue viz. that of residence of the petitioner in the premises for a period of six months prior to the date of the order.