V N WANCHOO Vs. COLLECTOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by twentyeight persons who are tenants of as many quarters in a building known as "Gupta Colony" which was constructed in about May or June 1950 by one R. C. Gupta on land belonging to him situate on the Canal Road, Civil Lines Delhi. On the 6th of April 1951, the Collector of Delhi issued notices purporting to be under Section 3 (3) of the Delhi Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Act, 1947, upon each of the applicants. These notices were typed and ran as follows: NOTICE "WHEREAS in my opinion it is necessary to requisition the premises in the schedule hereto appended for a public purpose, the proper and efficient functioning of the Government of India and maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community; NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of the Delhi Premises (Requisition and Eviction Act, 1947 (XLIV of 1947) (sic), I, Rameshwar Dayal, Collector, Delhi, do hereby call upon the landlord and the tenant or the person in possession of the said premises to show cause within seven days from the date of this notice why the said premises should not be requisitioned. I further direct that the premises specified below shall not without my permission be disposed of or structurally altered." In the schedule the various quarters of the applicants were severally specified. This notice was served on the landlord R. C Gupta and upon each of the applicants.

(2.) On the 27th of August 1951 the Collector passed further orders purporting to be under Section 3 (4) of the Act. These orders were in the following form: ORDER OP REQUISITION WHEREAS with a view to requisition the premises specified in the schedule hereto appended for a public purpose, I. R. Dayal, Collector, Delhi, issued a notice under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Delhi Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Act 1947 (XLIX of 1947) (sic) calling upon the landlord and the tenant-or the person in possession of the said premises, to show cause within seven days why the said Premises should not be requisitioned; AND WHEREAS, the said period of seven days has expired and the cause/causes shown by the landlord, the tenant and the person in possession of the said' premises has/have been considered by me and I am satisfied that it is necessary to requisition the said premises for a public purpose, viz.- NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Subsection (4) of Section 3 of the said Act, I do hereby requisition the said premises with effect from 22-8-1951 until further orders and direct the landlord/tenant or any other person in possession of the said premises, to deliver possession thereof with all fittings and fixtures therein in the forenoon of 3-9-1951 to the Tahsildar, Delhi, or such officer as may be deputed by him in this behalf, failing which possession shall be taken by the said Tahsildar or the said officer on my behalf." To this order was appended a schedule specifying the various quarters occupied by the present applicants.

(3.) On the 20th of August 1951, petitioners Nos. 11 to 19 filed separate appeals under Section 5 of the Act to the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. According to Mr. Grover for the applicants, the other petitioners were not able to appeal at that time on account of poverty. It is claimed by the present application that the action taken by the Collector of Delhi was not in conformity with the requirements of the Delhi Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Act, 1947, was taken for a purpose other than that contemplated by the Act and therefore was 'mala fide' in law. On these grounds it was claimed that the order should be set aside.