RADHARAMAN DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, Radharaman Das and Kanailal Das are two brothers. They are the owners of a three-storeyed building in the suburbs of Calcutta, viz., premises No. 42A, S. R. Das Road. The first-floor consists of six living rooms, kitchen pantry, bath-room and privy. This floor was partitioned into two flats and one flat consisting of 4 bed rooms, one covered verandah, one kitchen and one combined bathroom, is the subject-matter of this application. In November, 1948, it was in the occupation of Tarapada Ghosh but the petitioners were obviously looking out for letting it out to tenants. Mr. S. N. Sen, at present working as a Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal began negotiating for it, but in the meanwhile notice requisitioning the flat was served by the West Bengal Government. Thereafter, Mr. Sen went into occupation. According to him, he prevailed upon the Government to de-requisition the premises but it is not clear whether an actual order was passed to that effect. In the last week of April 1952, Mr. Sen became the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal and got his own rent-free quarters. He informed the petitioners that he would vacate on or before 15-8-1952, and suggested that they should accept another Government officer as tenant. The petitioners are stated to have been agreeable at first, but ultimately they refused to accept this new tenant. On 9-8-1952 an order was passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 3, West Bengal Premises Requisition & Control (Temporary Provisions). Act, 1947 (West Bengal Act 5 of 1947) requisitioning the said flat. Copies of the order were served upon the tenant Mr. Sen and the petitioners, directing them to place the said flat at the disposal and control of respondent 4, at 4-30 P.M. on the very same day. The notice is in the usual form and the introductory words are as follows:

(2.) The point taken by Mr. Guha, appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the order of requisition is bad inasmuch as it merely states that the Government is of the opinion that the premises is needed for a public purpose without stating the purpose.

(3.) It has now been decided by this Court in -- 'Phani Bhusan Mondal v. B. L. Ghosh', and by the Bombay High Court in -- 'State of Bombay v. Mohanlal Kapur', (referring to an analogous order of requisition under the Bombay Land Acquisition Act 1948) that such an order of requisition is bad.