BHARAT MANILAL DALAL Vs. STATE OF BOMABY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be a tenant of a room in a building known as New Blocks situate at 175, Walkeshwar Road, Bombay. Prior to the year 1942 one Chandravadan C. Mehta was the tenant of the said premises. The petitioner alleges that he used to reside with the said Chandravadan C. Mehta in the said premises from the year 1941, that the said Mehta left the premises permanently in or about the middle of 1942, that the petitioner thereafter remained in possession of the said premises and was regularly paying rent in respect of the said premises to the landlord, that rent receipts in respect of the said premises were issued in the name of the said Mehta upto the end of the year 1955, that thereafter they were issued in the name of the petitioner and that he was the tenant lawfully entitled to occupy the said premises. In or about the end of March 1956 the petitioner came across a notice issued by the Inspector of Requisitioning calling upon the occupants of the said premises to present themselves before the Inspector with rent receipts, ration cards, electric bills, postal evidence etc. and to furnish such information as may be in their possession relating to the said premises. It is the case of the petitioner that he thereupon saw the Accommodation Officer and satisfied the Officer that he was the tenant of the said room. On March 29, 1957, a notice was issued by the Accommodation Officer to the said Ohandravadan C. Mehta as the tenant and to the petitioner and one Mahendra Manubhai Javeri as occupants. In that notice it was stated that the Government had made inquiries and were considering the question of requisitioning the said premises. The said Mehta, the petitioner and the said Javeri were required to see the Accommodation Officer on the date and at the time therein specified with their legal adviser, if any, with a written statement to show cause if any, why the said premises should not be requisitioned. They were further required on that day to produce all available evidence such as food ration cards, the true copies of extracts from the A.R.D.'s registers, rent bills, gas and electricity bills, postal cards or envelopes received at the said address and any other relevant evidence. On April 22, 1957, the petitioner saw the Accommodation Officer and pointed out what according to him were the correct facts and produced documentary evidence in support of his case. On December 13, 1957, an order was passed requisitioning the said premises. That order is in terms following: - Whereas on inquiry it is found that Shri Chandravadan C. Mehta was the person lawfully entitled to reside in the part of the building specified below: Room No. 1 on the 1st floor of the building known as New Blocks situated at 175, Walkeshwar Road, Bombay. And whereas on inquiry it is found that the said Shri Chandravadan C. Mehta has not actually resided in the said part of the building for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of this order; And whereas in the opinion of the Government of Bombay it is necessary to requisition the said part of the building for a public purpose, namely for housing a Bombay State Government Servant. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Bom. XXXIII of 1948) the Government of Bombay hereby declares that the said Shri Chandravadan C. Mehta has not actually resided in the said part of the building specified below for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of this Order, and requisitions the said part of the building for a public purpose, namely, for housing a Bombay State Government servant.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the validity of this order on various grounds and has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or orders or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering the State of Bombay and/or its officers to withdraw, cancel or set aside the said order of requisition dated December 13, 1957, and to forbear from enforcing and/or causing to be enforced or taking or causing to be taken any steps or proceedings in the enforcement of the said order and/or from allowing any person to occupy the said premises.

(3.) IT was strongly urged before me on behalf of the respondent that the declaration that has been made is conclusive evidence both as regards the person entitled lawfully to reside in the premises and as regards the fact of his non -residence during the period of six months immediately preceding the date of the order. Section 5(2) of the Bombay Land requisition Act, which has been relied upon, runs as follows: -