http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: KUNAL & CHAUDHARI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PURSHOTTAM B. TODI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/03/1997

BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 1997 Present:              Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy              Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati S.K. Dholakia,  Sr. Adv.,  Randhir Jain,  and  S.S.  Mishra, Advs. with him for the appellant S.  Ganesh,  S.R.  Setia  and  L.C.  Tolat,  Advs.  for  the Respondent D.M. Nargolkar, Adv. for the State                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:                       J U D G M E N T B.P. JEEVAN REDDY. J.      This application  has been  filed by  the petitioner in Special Leave  petition (C)  No. 16184  of  1996  which  was dismissed at the admission stage on 26th August, 1996. While dismissing the  special leave petition, this Court had given six months’  time for  the applicant  to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession to the respondent-landlord. It was specified  that the  said six months will expire on 26th February, 1997.  The applicant was also directed to file the usual  undertaking  within  four  weeks-which  he  did.  the applicant says  that in  vie of  the subsequent legislation, namely, the  Maharashtra Ordinance No. 23 of 1996 [which has been later  enacted into  an  Amendment  Act]  amending  the provision of  the Bombay  Rents, Hotel  and  Lodging  Houses Rates [Control] Act, 1997 [Bombay Rent Act], The Bombay land Requisition Act,  1948 and  the Bombay  Government  Premises [Eviction] Act, 1955, creating the statutory relationship of landlord and  tenant between  the applicant  and  the  first respondent [owner  of the  premises  concerned  herein],  he should be  discharged from the said undertaking. He says, he is entitled  to continue  in the  premises  as  a  statutory tenant.      The  premises  in  question,  belonging  to  the  first respondent, were  allotted to  the applicant’s mother in the year 1958  by the Government of Maharashtra under the Bombay land Requisition Act. After the death of his mother in 1974, the applicant  continued in possession. The applicant is not a Government  servant but  was allotted  the same,  being  a homeless  person,  under  what  is  called  the  "suppressed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

vacancy scheme".      In the  year 1988,  the first  respondent filed  a writ petition in  the Bombay  High Court  being Writ Petition No. 1881 of 1988 for a writ of mandamus directing the Government of Maharashtra  to derequisition  the said  premises and  to hand over  the possession  of the same to hm. While the said writ petition  was pending,  a constitution  Bench  of  this Court held  in Grahak  Sanstha Manch v. State of Maharashtra [1994 (4)  S.C.C. 192]  that the  power to requisition under the Bombay Land Requisition Act cannot be exercised so as to deprive the  landlord of  the  possession  of  the  premises indefinitely or  for an  inordinately long  time. The  Court pointed  out   the  distinction   between  acquisition   and requisition   and    according   directed    the    premises requisitioned long  ago  to  be  re-requisitioned  within  a period of eight months. The writ petition filed by the first respondent was allowed by the Bombay High court on 3rd July, 1996,  following   Grahak  Sanstha  Manch.  The  High  Court directed the  State Government  "to pass  an  order  of  de- requisition and  hand over  possession of  the  premises  in question to  the petitioner on or before 30th August, 1996". It is  against the said decision that he applicant had filed the aforesaid  special leave  Petition (C) No. 16184 of 1996 which was  dismissed by  this Court while granting time till 26th February,  1997 to  vacate  the  premises  and  deliver vacant possession of the same to the landlord.      The Maharashtra  Ordinance relied upon by the applicant amends three  enactments, namely,  Bombay Rent  Act,  Bombay land  requisition   Act  and   Bombay  government   Premises [Eviction] Act,  1955. It would be appropriate to notice the Statement of  objects  and  Reasons  appended  to  the  said ordinance which  would facilitate  a proper understanding of the amended    provisions.  The  Statement  of  objects  and Reasons refers to the decision in Grahak Sanstha Manch, as a consequence of  which a  large number of Government servants and others  occupying requisitioned premises were obliged to vacate and hand over the premises to State Government before the specified  date. The Statement points out that there are as many  as 604  residential  premises  and  about  90  non- residential premises  which are  still under  requisition in the Greater  Bombay and  about 138  in other  districts.  It refers to  the fact  that  several  landlords  have  already approached the  High Court seeking eviction  of allottees of the requisitioned  premises and  for de-requisitioning their premises   and that  those writ  petitions are  likely to be allowed.  The   Statement  then  says  that  the  Government consider it  expedient, in  greater public interest, to make suitable provision for providing the protection of statutory tenancy under  the Rent  Act to  the State Government and to its allottees  and that it is for achieving the said purpose that the ordinance is being issued.      We may now notice the amendments effected to the Bombay Rent Act.  Section 2  of the  ordinance has  inserted clause (1A)  in  Section  5  defining  the  expression  "Government allottee". The  definition comprises  two clauses  - (a) and (b). Clause  (a) refers  to the  Government servants who are allotted the  requisitioned premises  and clause (b) relates to others  to whom  the  requisitioned  premises  have  been allotted. It  would be  sufficient for  our purposes  to not clause (b) alone. It reads :      "(1A)   ’Government    Allottee’.--      ........................      (b)  in relation  to  any  premises      requisitioned  or  continued  under      requisition which  are allotted  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    the  State   Government  which  are      residential purpose  to any  person      and on  the  date  of  coming  into      force of  the Bombay  Rents,  Hotel      and Lodging  House  Rates  Control,      Bombay Land  Requisition and Bombay      Government   Premises    (Eviction)      (Amendment) Ordinance,  1996,  such      person or his legal heir is allowed      by occupation or possession of such      premises  for  his  or  such  legal      heir’s own  residence,  means  such      person or legal heir."           (Emphasis supplied)      Section 3  of the  Ordinance has  inserted Section 15B, which reads as follows:      "15B. (1)  On the  date  of  coming      into force  of  the  Bombay  Rents,      Hotel  and   Lodging  House   Rates      Control,  Bombay  Land  Requisition      and  Bombay   Government   Premises      (Eviction  (Amendment)   Ordinance,      1996 (hereinafter  in this  section      referred  to   as  the   ‘the  said      date’),--      (a)  the   State   Government,   in      respect     of     the     premises      requisitioned  or  continued  under      requisition  and   allotted  to   a      Government allottee  referred to in      sub-clause (a)  of clause  (1A)  of      section 5; and      (b)  the  Government  allottee,  in      respect     of     the     premises      requisitioned  or  continued  under      requisition and  allotted to him as      referred to  in sub-clause  (b)  of      clause (1A) of section 5,      shall,   notwithstanding   anything      contained in  this Act,  or in  the      Bombay Land  Requisition Act, 1948,      or in  any other  law for  the time      being in force, or in any contract,      or  in  any  judgement,  decree  or      order of  any court  passed  on  or      after  the   11th  June,  1996,  be      deemed  to  have  become,  for  the      purposes of this Act, the tenant of      the  landlord   and  such  premises      shall be deemed to have been let by      the   landlord    to   the    State      Government or,  as the case may be,      to  such  Government  allottee,  on      payment  of   rent  and   permitted      increases equal  to the  amount  of      compensation payable  in respect of      the premises immediately before the      said date.      (2)  Save as  otherwise provided in      this   section    or   any    other      provisions of  this Act, nothing in      this section shall affect,---      (a)  the  rights  of  the  landlord      including  his   right  to  recover      possession  of  the  premises  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

    tenant  on   any  of   the  grounds      mentioned in  section 13  or in any      other section;      (b) the  right of  the landlord  or      such tenant  to apply  to the court      for the  fixation of  standard rent      and permitted  increases under this      Act, by  reason only  of  the  fact      that the  amount of  the  rent  and      permitted increases,  if any, to be      paid by such tenant to the landlord      is determined under sub-clause (1);      (c)   the    operation   and    the      application of  the other  relevant      provisions of  this Act  in respect      of such tenancy."           [Emphasis supplied]      Section 5 of the Ordinance has added sub-section (8) in Section 9  of the  Bombay Land  Requisition Act,  1948. Sub- section (8) reads thus:      "(8) On  the date  of  coming  into      force of  the Bombay  Rents,  Hotel      and Lodging  House  Rates  Control,      Bombay Land  Requisition and Bombay      Government   Premises    (Eviction)      (Amendment)  Ordinance,  1996,  all      the   premises   requisitioned   or      continued under  requisition  under      this Act and allotted to Government      allottees who,  on  the  said  date      were   allowed    by   the    State      Government to continue or to remain      in occupation or possession of such      premises, shall  be deemed  to have      been released from requisition, and      in respect  of  such  premises  the      State Government,  or as  the  case      may be,  the Government,  or as the      case   may   be,   the   Government      allottees referred to in clause (b)      of the  Explanation,  shall  become      the  tenants   by  virtue   of  the      provisions of  section 15B  of  the      Bombay  Rents,  Hotel  and  Lodging      House Rates  Control Act,  1947 and      the compensation,  if any,  due  in      respect of  such premises  shall be      determined and  paid to the persons      entitled   thereto   as   if   such      premises  were   actually  released      under this section.      Explanation.-- For  the purposes of      this  sub-section,  the  expression      ‘Government allottee’--      (a) in  relation  to  any  premises      requisitioned  or  continued  under      requisition which  are allotted  by      the  State  Government  or  Central      Government  or  any  public  sector      undertaking or  corporation,  owned      or controlled  fully or  partly  by      the State  Government  or  any  co-      operative society  registered under      the    Maharashtra     Co-operative      Societies Act,  1960 or any foreign

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    consulate by  whatever name  called      and, on  the date  of  coming  into      force of  the Bombay  Rents,  Hotel      and Lodging  House  Rates  Control,      Bombay Land  Requisition and Bombay      Government   Premises    (Eviction)      (Amendment)  Ordinance,   1996  are      allowed by  the State Government to      remain  in   their  occupation  and      possession,  means   the  principal      officer-in-charge of such office or      department   or    public    sector      undertaking   or   corporation   or      society or consulate; and      (b) in  relation  to  any  premises      requisitioned  or  continued  under      requisition which  are allotted  by      the    state     Government     for      residential purpose  to any  person      and, on  the date  of  coming  into      force of  the Bombay  Rents,  Hotel      and Lodging  House  Rates  Control,      Bombay Land  Requisition and Bombay      Government   Premises    (Eviction)      (Amendment) Ordinance,  1996,  such      person or his legal heir is allowed      by the  State Government  to remain      in lawful  occupation or possession      of such  premises for  his  own  of      such legal  heir’s residence, means      such person or legal heir."           [Emphasis supplied]      The Bombay Government premises [Eviction] Act, 1955 was also correspondingly amended.      The applicant’s case is that by virtue of the aforesaid amended provisions,  he has  become a statutory tenant under the first respondent and, therefore, he should be discharged from the  undertaking given by him to this Court pursuant to the Orders  of this Court dated 26th August, 1996. In short, he says that he should not be called upon to vacate the said premises and  deliver vacant possession thereof to the first respondent in view of the new statutory relationship created by the amended provisions.      The  application  is  stoutly  oppossed  by  the  first respondent.      When this application came up for hearing, we indicated to Sri Dholakia, learned counsel for the applicant, that two alternate courses  are open  to him.  One is  to vacate  the premises in  accordance with the undertaking given by him to this Court  and  work  out  his  rights  under  the  amended provisions according  to law.  The other is to rely upon the amended  provisions  and  say  that  in  view  of  the  said provisions, he  should be  discharged from  undertaking  and that he  should be  allowed to continue in possession of the said premises  by virtue  of  the  amended  provisions.  Sri Dholakia chose  the second  course and  accordingly  we  are expressing ourselves on the applicant’s claim that by virtue of the  amended provisions,  he  has  become  the  statutory tenant of the premises under the first respondent-landlord.      The definition  of "Government allottee" in clause (1A) in Section 5 of the Bombay Rent Act, as already pointed out, comprises two  clauses, viz.,  (a)  and  (b)  and  that  the applicant claims  to fall  under clause  (b) [Admittedly, he does not  fall  under  clause  (a)].  But  for  falling  two requirement:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

(1)  The requisitioned  premises are  allotted by  the State Government to  him for  residential purpose  and (2)  on the date of  coming  into  force  of  the  said  Ordinance,  the applicant "is  allowed by  the State Government to remain in occupation   or    possession   of    such   premises    for his....residence". The  definition of  "Government allottee" in the  explanation appended to sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act is in the same terms. The Ordinance was  issued on  and commenced on December 7, 1996. The question is whether it can be said that on 7th December, 1996 the  applicant is a person who "is allowed by the State Government to remain in occupation or possession of the said premises for  his residence"?  We think not. pursuant to the judgment of  the High  Court dated  3rd July,  1996 allowing Writ Petition  No.1881 of  1988, it is pointed out by Sri S. Ganesh  learned   counsel  for  the  first  respondent,  the Government of  Maharashtra has  passed two Orders. Under the Order dated  24th July,  1996, the applicant was called upon to vacate  the premises  and  hand  over  the  same  to  the Government so  as to  enable it  to de-requisition  the said premises and  deliver possession of the same to the landlord as directed by the High Court. Subsequently, on 17th August, 1996, the  Government of  Maharashtra made  an  Order  under Section 11(1) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act authorizing the area  Sub-Inspector in  the office  of the Controller of Accommodation to take vacant possession of the said premises from the  applicant on or before 30th August, 1996. The area Sub-Inspector was  empowered to  use such  force as  may  be reasonably necessary  for the  said purpose.  The said Order could not,  however, be  implemented  or  executed  for  the reason that  this Court by its Order dated 26th August, 1996 permitted the  applicant to  remain  in  occupation  of  the premises till  26th February,  1997. It  is obvious that but for the  said Order  of this  Court, the  area Sub-Inspector would have  evicted the applicant from the said premises. In any event,  the authority  of the  applicant to  occupy  the premises by  virtue of the allotment Order made by the State Government came  to an  end on  30th August,  1996  was  one "allowed"  by  the  State  Government.  It  was  wholly  and exclusively attributable  to the  Order of  this Court dated 26th August,  1996. To repeat, as on 7th December, 1996 [the date of  Ordinance] the  applicant was  not a person who "is allowed by  the State  Government to remain in occupation or possession of  such premises for his residence", which means that he  does not  fall within the definition of "Government allottee" contained  in clause  (1A) in  Section  5  of  the Bombay Rent  Act. He  cannot, therefore,  take advantage  of Section 15B  of the said Act. For the same reason, he cannot also seek to take benefit of sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.      For  the   above  reasons,   the  contention  that  the applicant has  become a  statutory tenant  under  the  first respondent   by    virtue   of   the   aforesaid   Ordinance [subsequently enacted into an Act*] is unsustainable in ------------------------------------------------------------ * We  may mention that though the Maharashtra Legislature is stated to  have enacted an Act in terms of the Ordinance, We were referred  by the  learned counsel for both parties only to the  provisions of  the  Ordinance  on  the  ground  that provisions of  both the  Ordinance and  the Amending Act are identical. law and  is  rejected  herewith.  Interlocutory  Application shall pay the costs of the respondent assessed at Rupees two thousand and five hundred only.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7