TAN BUG TAIM Vs. COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are partners carrying on business in partnership in the firm name and style of Kokwah Chinese Restaurant at Dhanraj Mahal, Apollo Bunder, Bombay. They have been occupying shops Nos. 1, 5 and 11 on the ground-floor of the Dhanraj Mahal and have been conducting the business of the restaurant since March 22, 1944, when they purchased the restaurant together with its paraphernalia and goodwill from the previous owners thereof on payment of a sum of Rs. 42,000. The restaurant has been in existence in any event from and after May 1942 when the previous owners stopped their business of curios which they had been carrying on there along with the business of restaurant and converted the whole premises for their user as a restaurant. The restaurant employs about twenty-four servants and is fitted up with costly fixtures, fittings and furniture which has been installed therein. It also enjoys considerable goodwill in so far as it commands a great reputation and caters for a large clientele including members of the fighting forces of the Allied Nations. It has a large establishment and is one of the leading Chinese restaurants in Bombay.

(2.) It appears that the entire land and the building thereon known as the Dhanraj Mahal was requisitioned by the Collector of Bombay by his order dated April 7, 1942, and except the ground floor the upper floors have been since then in the actual occupation of the officers of the Royal Indian Navy and the members of their families. When such requisition was made the Government entered into the possession of the upper floors of Dhanraj Mahal and continued to manage the same through one Homiyar Dhanjishaw Broacha whose services were transferred by the owner of the Dhanraj Mahal to the Government. The shops on the ground floor appear, however, to have remained in the possession of the owner and he employed his own manager to look after the said shops who prepared the bills and recovered the rents from the tenants of the shops on the ground floor.

(3.) On or about May 31, 1944, a month's notice was served on the proprietor of the Kokwah Chinese Restaurant requiring the proprietor to vacate the premises at the end of June, 1944, as the premises in his occupation were required reasonably and bona fide by the Government for the Royal Indian Navy. Correspondence thereafter ensued between the then attorneys of the proprietor of the Kokwah Chinese Restaurant and the Solicitors of the Central Government at Bombay on behalf of the Government. It seems to have been realised by the Government that they could not so terminate the tenancy of the proprietors of the Kokwah Chinese Restaurant and the intention of the Government to acquire possession of the premises of the Kokwah Chinese Restaurant came to an unnatural end. It appears that thereafter on October 21, 1944, the Collector of Bombay, the respondent herein, addressed a letter to the proprietor of the Kokwah Chinese Restaurant, Dhanraj Mahal, calling upon him under Rule 75A(5) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, to furnish him within one week from date information on the various points therein mentioned with regard to the restaurant. This letter was addressed by the respondent in connection with the proposed requisition of the Kokwah Chinese Restaurant under the Defence of India Act. By his letter dated November 13, 1944, the first petitioner furnished the requisite information to the respondent wherein he disclosed the names of the petitioners as the proprietors of the said restaurant, pointed out that the fixtures, fittings, goodwill of the restaurant had been bought over by the petitioners from its previous owners in March, 1944, at a price of Rs. 42,000, enclosed a list of crockery, furniture and provisions bought over at the time of the sale, also pointed out that since the premises were rented by the previous owners expenses had been incurred for the fitting up of kitchen, staircase and other fixtures and the premises had been decorated and fitted up for the purposes of a Chinese restaurant which expenses had been included besides the goodwill in the price paid by the present owners to the previous owners of the restaurant, and also intimated to the respondent the net monthly income of the restaurant which was estimated at Rs. 1,000 per month.