SUDHIRA BALA ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellants, who are admittedly owners of premises No. 196/1, Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta have challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated July 24, 1980, whereby the learned Judge, while issuing the Rule Nisi on the application of the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution, has refused their prayer for an interim order directing the respondents to restore possession of the first and second floors of the said premises to the appellants.

(2.) The case of the appellants as stated in the writ petition is inter alia that they had let out the first and second floors of the disputed premises to "Suralirtha", a music and dance school. The appellants filed a suit for eviction being Title Suit No, 581 of 1978 of the second court of Munsif at Alipore against the persons in management of the said school on the grounds of reasonable requirement of the appellants of the said two floors of the disputed premises, default in payment of rent, sub-letting etc. The said suit was decreed ex parte on Apr. 16, 1979. Thereafter, the appellants put the said decree in execution and obtained possession of the said floors of the disputed premises with police help on July 5, 1980 at about noon. In the night of that very day, some policemen were posted at the gate of the disputed premises preventing the appellants and the members of their family ingress to and egress from the disputed premises. On July 17, 1980, the appellants moved before this Court an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of West Bengal, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Division, Calcutta and the Officer-in-charge of the Ballygunge Police Station, inter alia praying for a mandatory injunction directing the said res- pendents to forthwith stop or withdraw police interference at the disputed premises disturbing the lawful possession of the appellants of the same. On that day, the learned Judge made a civil order directing the said respondents to ensure that there was no obstruction to the ingress and egress to and from the disputed premises. It appears that on July 8, 1980, the respondent No. 9 Ajita Ranjan Mukherjee and his wife Smt. Nihar Kana Mukherjee wrote a letter to the Chief Minister of the State, earnestly requesting him to acquire the disputed premises for Suratirtha. It is the case of the appellants that on the next day, that is, on July 9, 1980 a police force headed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police came to the disputed premises along with some officers of the Land Acquisition Department and demanded possession of the first and second floors of the disputed premises from the appellants alleging that the same had been requisitioned. The appellants, in that predicament, asked their learned Advocate over the phone to come to the disputed premises. After the learned Advocate had arrived, he was shown by the Officers of the land Acquisition Department an order being Order No. 24 of 1980 dated July 9, 1980, whereby the Government of West Bengal purported to requisition the first and second floors of the disputed premises under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary) Provision Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In the said order, it was also stated that possession would be taken on July 9, 1980 at 5.30 P.M. It is not disputed that on that day possession of the said two floors of the disputed premises was taken. In other words the appellants were dispossessed from the said two floors of the disputed premises with police help.

(3.) It has been alleged by the appellants that no order of requisition was served upon them and even the officers of the Land Acquisition Department who were present at the time of taking delivery of possession on July 9, 1980 refused to give a copy of the order of requisition to their learned Advocate. It is also alleged by the appellants that they were not also served with any order of the Collector under Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of Section 4 (1) of the Act directing them to vacate the premises within the period as mentioned therein. On the next day, that is, on July 10, 1980, the appellants again moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the said purported order of requisition. It was contended by the appellants that the impugned order of requisition was illegal and mala fide. The further contention was that Suratirtha being a private institution, requisition of the portion of the disputed premises for such a private institution could not be for a public purpose. In any event, it was contended by the appellants, that no order of requisition under Section 3 (1) and no order for delivery of possession under Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of Section 4 (1) of the Act having been served upon the appellants, the dispossession of the appellants from the said portion of the disputed premises was illegal and without jurisdiction.