RANJIT PREMJIBHAI GOHIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a group of Petitions, the constitutional validity of maharashtra Act No. XVI of 1997 is being challenged. The Act is called "the bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control, Bombay Land requisition and Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) (Amendment)Act, 1996 " (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") By the Act, provisions of three enactments, namely, 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 are amended.

(2.) BY the Act, an allottee or his or her heirs, who is or are occupying the premises requisitioned under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 is or are deemed to have become tenant or tenants for the purpose of Bombay Rent Act, 1947 and the owner to be the landlord for that purpose.

(3.) IT is contended that there is no contractual relationship between the owner of the premises and the Government allottees and that the possession of the premises was taken compulsorily or by force of low to accommodate some persons because of the particular situation which prevailed at the relevant time. The possession of the premises having been taken under statutory compulsion, the question sought to be raised by the Petitioner is whether it is open to the Legislature to say that the allottee of such premises would be deemed tenant and thereby deprive the owner of the possession of the said premises in perpetuity? The Petitioner's case is that the said enactment is absolutely unreasonable and unjustified; particularly when the Apex Court, as early as in 1984, had directed the State Government to see to it that requisitioned premises are either vacated or acquired, instead of following the said direction issued by the Supreme Court, the law is enacted to deprive the owners of their valuable right to get back their property, of which the possession was taken by force or compulsion of law. It is contended that, in view of the two supreme Court Judgments. H. D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [air 1984 s. C. 866] and Grahak Sanstha Manch andors. v. State of Maharashtra [air 1994 s. C. 2319], the owners of the premises, who were deprived of use and occupation of their premises, were eagerly waiting for years for return of their property and, to their shock and surprise, they came to know about the said enactment which is palpably unjustified, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution