MARTIN AND HARRIS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally this petition was filed by three petitioner. It appears that on a subsequent date the second petitioners got themselves transposed as second respondents. As the petition stands to-day, the petition is being prosecuted by the two petitioners, namely, the original first and third petitioners and not the second respondents. However, the second respondents support the petitioners to the extent of their interests.

(2.) The petition has been filed to challenge two orders of requisition, both dated 21st May, 1971, passed by the first respondent State Government under section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The first petitioners are a Private Limited Company. In the year 1942, the first petitioners took on lease from the landlords, who are respondents Nos. 3 to 8 being trustees of Sir Ratan Tata Trust, the whole of the east wing consisting of ground and three floors and first floor of west wing of a building known as Savoy Chambers, situated at Wallace Street, Fort, Bombay. By a notice dated 2nd August, 1965, the landlords terminated contractual tenancy of the first petitioners, and according to the petitioners, they are continuing as statutory tenants thereof since that date. Subsequently, by an agreement of leave and licence dated 12th November, 1968, the first petitioners allowed the second respondent (the former second petitioners) to use and occupy an area of about 3350 sq.ft. out of the total area of 3500 sq.ft. on the second floor of the said east wing. By another agreement of leave and licence dated 11th May, 1970, the first petitioners gave on leave and licence an area of 2031 sq.ft. out of the total area of 3246 sq. ft. on the third floor of the said east wing to the third petitioners (who are now the second petitioners).

(3.) Assistance Controller of Accommodation by his notice dated 23th July, 1970 issued under the said Act and served upon the first petitioners, the second petitioners and the second respondents called upon them to show cause as to why the premises in question, namely, the said second floor and the third floor premises should not be requisitioned by the Government, and fixed and enquiry into the matter on the 31st July, 1970. It appears that in pursuant of this notice, an enquiry was held ultimately on 24th August, 1970, where the petitioners and the second respondents were represented by their legal advisers, and the said Assistance Controller of Accommodation by his letter dated 30th September, 1970, addressed to the first petitioners, intimated his conclusion to them, namely, that on the evidence made available before the Controller of Accommodation, he had come to the conclusion that there was a suppressed vacancy in the premises. The premises were mentioned as "entire second floor and portion of the third floor (about 2000 sq.ft.)." It appear that thereafter there was a representation made by the petitioners and the second respondents to Chief Secretary of the first respondent-State on the 10th of November, 1970 where the Controller of Accommodation was also present. Nothing, however, of any avail to the petitioners came out of the said representation, since by his letter dated 30th December, 1970, the Controller of Accommodation informed the legal adviser of the petitioners and the second respondents that there was no alternation in the decision that it was case of suppressed vacancy as intimated earlier. Thereafter followed the two impugned orders of the requisition both dated 21st May, 1971, one relating to "premises on second floor" and another to "premises on the thirds floor". The first was addressed to the landlords, the first petitioner and the second respondents whereas the third was addressed to the landlord, the first petitioners and the original third petitioners and now the second petitioners. A statement has been made at the bar that during the pendency of the petition the original third petitioners, i.e. the second petitioners vacated the premises and the first petitioners alone have been in occupation of the third floor which is the subject-matter of the said second requisition order. The petition has been filed to challenge both the said requisition order and as stated earlier, the petition was originally filed by the first petitioners as well as the two licensees, namely the present second respondents and the present second petitioners.