MOHANDAS MULJI SICKA Vs. COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule nisi for a writ of certiorari and subsidiary reliefs which has been obtained by Mr. Mohandas Mulji Sicka, against the Collector of Bombay. The circumstances are briefly these:-

(2.) Mr. Sicka is the owner of a house called "Sicka Villa" in Pedder Road in this city and used hmiself to reside till December, 1942, in Calcutta. In that month he was minded to go and live in his own house in Bombay. He has, apparently, a large family and is a man of very good position in life, and, quite naturally, required considerable premises for his occupation. At the time his house was let to three persons, one occupying each of its three floors-one Mr. Coutino lived on the ground floor, one Mrs. Fatah on the first floor, and a Mr. Potter on the top floor. With a view to getting rid of these people and occupying the whole house himself Mr. Sicka gave the tenants notice. Pursuant to such notice Mr. Potter, obligingly, went out. Mrs. Fatah apparently still holds her portion of the premises under a contractual tenancy and consequently would not go, while Mr. Coutino on the ground floor continued to occupy the premises claiming the benefit of the Rent Restriction Order. The result is that at the moment the top floor is occupied by the applicant,-and it seems that the top floor is wholly inadequate for the requirements of hie family,- the middle flat is occupied by a sitting contractual tenant and the ground floor is occupied by a statutory tenant.

(3.) Section 8 of the Rent Restriction Order by its proviso provides that nothing therein shall apply where the landlord has obtained a certificate from the Controller certifying that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for his own occupation. On June 19 last year the applicant applied to the Controller, who is defined in Section 3 of the Order, for such a certificate. His application was heard on July 12, and on the 16 the Controller recorded a finding that no such certificate should be issued. He intimated his decision to the applicant on the 19 of that month and the applicant received that intimation in the ordinary course of post on the 20th. I am not concerned with the merits of that decision, but it is fair to point out that the Controller may have thought-I do not know that he did-that the grant of a certificate would be a vain thing because it would have left Mr. Sicka with the top floor and the bottom floor and sandwiched between them on the middle floor tenant under a contractual tenancy whom he cannot turn out-an unsatisfactory state of affairs for everybody concerned. But, whether that was his reason or not, but he did refuse a certificate. I only mention this because it was perfectly possible that what he did was on reasonable grounds, and I am certainly not going to assume that he acted unreasonably. Clause 12 of the Order is important and I had better read it in its entirety :- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller under the provisions of this Order including an order granting a certificate under the proviso to Clause 8 may, within 15 days from the date on which the order is communicated to him, present an appeal in writing to the Collector of Bombay. (2) The Collector shall then call for the record of the Controller and after examining the record and after making such further enquiry as he thinks fit, either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal. (3) The decision of the Collector, and subject only to such decision, the order of the Controller shall be final." The present applicant lodged an appeal in writing with the Collector of Bombay on August 3, 1943. On September 2 the Collector wrote to his attorneys as follows;- With reference to your petition of appeal dated 8-8-43 I have the honour to state that from a perusal of the record of the ease I think that the Rent Controller is correct in not issuing the certificate. Your appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed.