KEWALRAM Vs. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 21 August 1948 the appellant purchased a house known as "Omar Bagh" in Nungambakkam, Madras. He acquired the property as a residence for himself and the members of his family. At the date of the purchase the house was in the occupation of Mr. P. Venkataramana Razu, Superintending Engineer, (A. R. P. and Aerodromes), Madras. It was inconvenient for Mr. Razu to move at once and he desired to remain in occupation until he could get a suitable residence elsewhere. We shall refer later in detail to what transpired between the date of the purchase by the appellant and 18 December 1943 when Mr. Razu vacated the house. For the moment it is sufficient to mention that on 11 December the Collector of Madras requisitioned the house under Rule 75A of the Rules framed under the Defence of India Act, 1939, for the residence of his successor. This order was served upon the appellant on 15 December. Thereupon he interviewed the then Collector (Mr. Bhaskara Rao) and the Chief Secretary (Mr. G. W. Priestly) with the object of obtaining the cancellation of the requisition order. He was not successful and consequently on 17 December he filed in this Court an application under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, for an order quashing the order of requisition. The application was heard by Bell J. during the Christmas vacation as the matter was one of urgency. The learned Judge held that the appellant had not made out a case for interference with the order and consequently dismissed the application. The appeal is from the judgment of the learned Judge. The appellant avers that the Collector had no power to issue the order of requisition and his learned Counsel has advanced a number of reasons for this assertion. The appellant also says that even if the Collector possessed the power, the order issued by him amounted to an abuse of it.

(2.) Before the purchase of the house by the appellant it belonged to one Mr. D. D. Italia, who on 4 August 1943, no doubt at the request of the appellant, issued a notice to Mr. Razu to quit by the end of that month. At the time there was a great shortage of houses in Madras. This is so well known that the Court is justified in taking judicial notice of the fact. Having received the notice to quit, Mr. Razu wrote through an advocate of this Court, Mr. Rajaram to Mr. Italia's agent stating that it was impossible for him to comply with the demand that he should vacate the house by the end of August. He would make every endeavour to secure a suitable house and when he had done so he would vacate. He did not comply with the notice and nothing further happened until 20 September when Mr. Shamanna, the appellant's solicitor, wrote to Mr. Razu pointing out how his client was being inconvenienced by being kept out of the house which he had bought for his family residence. His wife and children had been brought from Hyderabad, Sind, to Madras and he had no other suitable residence for them. There was no reply to this letter. On 14 October Mr. Shamanna wrote to Mr. Razu pointing out that the appellant had shown every con. sideration for him, but he must vacate by the end of October, otherwise he would have to resort to legal proceedings. On 16th October Mr. Sundaram wrote again stating that his client was endeavouring to secure a suitable bungalow and would vacate as early as it was practicable for him to do so. Further correspondence of this nature passed between the lawyers of the appellant and Mr. Razu and the mon December, found Mr. Razu still in occupation, although he had reiterated his intention to vacate as soon as he could find some other suitable house. On 7 December Mr. Sundaram wrote to Mr. Shamanna stating that Mr. Razu would vacate Omar Bagh by 1 January 1944. This letter was followed by a request made on behalf of the appellant that Mr. Razu should vacate by 13 December and not at the end of the month. On 13th December, Mr. Sundaram wrote to Mr. Shamanna stating that his client would be leaving the house on the evening of 18 December and that he would give possession at 8-30 A. M. the next day. By this time the order of requisition had been issued. As we have already mentioned, it was served on the appellant on 15 December.

(3.) Mr. Bhaskara Rao lived in the next house to Omar Bagh. On 28 November the Provincial Government notified his transfer to Guntur. It was not convenient for him to take his family with him to Guntur, as his sons were attending a school in Madras. Consequently, it was arranged between him and Mr. Razu that Mr. Razu should vacate the house on the arrival of the new Collector, Mr. Day on 18th December and that Mr. Razu should take over the occupation of Mr. Bhaskara Rao's house. This was of great convenience to Mr. Bhaskara Rao. It ensured that his sons who had to remain in Madras would be looked after and that care would be taken of his furniture. It is no wonder that in these circumstances the appellant felt that he had been badly treated and the order of requisition had been issued as the result of some arrangement between Mr. Bhaskara Rao and Mr. Razu. The appellant was not, however, in possession of the full facts and when these are considered it cannot be said that the requisitioning of Omar Bagh was in any way mala fide. A house had to be found for the incoming Collector, and, of course, it was also necessary that Mr. Razu, as the Superintending Engineer, A. R. P. and Aerodromes, should have a house in Madras. On 7 December 1943, the Provincial Government passed a memorandum in which it stated that it had selected Omar Bagh for the residence of Mr. Day who had been posted as the Collector of Madras. The Collector of Madras was accordingly requested to requisition the building as soon as the then tenant vacated it in order that it might be ready for the occupation of Mr. Day on his arrival in Madras. This memorandum was issued under the signature of Mr. A. H. Southorn, Deputy Secretary to Government, Public (War) Department. It is in consequence of this communication that Mr. Bhaskara Rao as the Collector of Madras issued the order of requisition on 11 December. In reply to the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his application affidavits sworn by Mr. Southorn and Mr. Bhaskara Rao have been filed. In his affidavit Mr. Southorn states that the Collector of Madras is in charge of supplies essential for the City of Madras such as rice and firewood and is also the Deputy Civil Defence Commissioner. Mr. Razu as the Superintending Engineer, A. R. P. and Aerodromes, is employed in Madras solely on works necessary for the prosecution of the war. As no other suitable residence was available, he suggested to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras that the Government should requisition Omar Bagh. The affidavit proceeds: There is no question of Mr. P. Venkataramana Razu having prevailed on the Collector to requisition the building. The suggestion to commandeer the building as already stated, originated with me and there is no truth whatever in the allegation that the Collector of Madras in requisitioning the building was actuated by improper or malicious motives or that he exercised the power for any collateral or illegitimate purpose. Mr. Bhaskara Rao in his affidavit states that the circumstances in which the order came to be made are accurately stated in Mr. Southorn's affidavit. As no other suitable house was available, he was satisfied that Omar Bagh was necessary for the purpose of accommodating the incoming Collector and therefore he passed the order.