GAJANAN TANAJI JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved is whether the suit premises can be requisitioned for an indefinite period. The question arises in the following facts :--

(2.) ORDER of requisition came to be passed in respect of the premises i. e. 2 rooms situated in a chawl, at Tika No. 3, City Survey No. 54/55, situate at Mahagiri, Thane on 19-3-1955 by the Collector, Thane. The premises belong to respondent No. 3. It seems that 2 employees of respondent No. 1 stayed in those premises for few years. However it was vacated and respondent No. 3 got possession thereof in the year 1961. The father-in-law of the respondent No. 3 introduced the appellant as a tenant of these premises at the rent of Rs. 25/- p. m. in 1961 and the appellant went on paying the said rent to the respondent No. 3. Admittedly respondent No. 1 Government paid no rent to the respondent No. 3 since 1961. For the first time the Circle Officer, Thane issued a notice on 30-10-1980 asking the petitioner to vacate the premises on the ground that he is a trespasser. Appellant filed the suit challenging the said notice as illegal contending that he was introduced as tenant in these premises and occupying the same since 1961. He is not a trespasser. He contended that the premises were not requisitioned, and even if they were requisitioned they were derequisitioned by the Government and hence the appellant has been rightly introduced as a tenant thereof. However, the case of the appellant was not accepted by both the courts below.

(3.) THE fact remains that since 1961 the appellant is occupying the premises. The appellant alone entered the witness box and stated that he was introduced as a tenant by the father-in-law of the respondent No. 3 and paying Rs. 25/- p. m. as rent to the landlord. The landlord-respondent No. 3 has not entered the witness box and contradicted the same. None entered the witness box on behalf of respondent No. 1 the State Government. Government cannot continue the requisition for an indefinite period. This has been well laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment (H. D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra and others), 1984 (2) Bom. C. R. 239 : A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 866 and recent judgment (Grahak Sanstha Manch and others v. State of Maharashtra), 1994 (4) S. C. C. 192. The Apex Court considered the provisions of Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 and held that requisition can continue for a reasonable period. The reasonable period depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and there can be no limit fixed for that. It was held that after the reasonable period is elapsed the requisition ceased as it becomes invalid thereafter. If such requisition is continued for unreasonable period then it is as good as acquisition. In the present case, it is clear that 19 long years i. e. 1961 to 1980 the Government did nothing. Even the Government did not pay any rent to the landlord-Respondent No. 3. It was paid by the appellant as a tenant. Therefore in the facts and circumstances it can be said that derequisition has taken place in 1961 and possession was handed over to the landlord. In any case the requisition could not be continued beyond 30 years and hence there could be no requisition after 1985 and it is to be deemed that the Government has handed over the possession to the landlord. It is clear therefore that the respondent No. 3 did not contest this matter. The landlord has neither claimed nor can claim possession thereof from the Government as she has accepted the appellant as her tenant since 1961. In view of this, I pass the following order :-