IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7290 of 2006]

State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Appellants

Vs.

M/s. Narmada Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel.

2. First respondent claims to be the owner of property  

bearing  No.1300-1303,  Village  Yerawada,  Pune  District.  

First respondent claims that the said property bearing  

Nos.1300-1303  as  also  adjoining  property  bearing  

Nos.1304-1305 were requisitioned by the State Government  

from  the  then  owners  on  20.9.1942.  Thereafter  the  

properties  were  allotted  and  handed  over  to  Yerawada  

Mental Hospital on 1.4.1945.

3. The  Yerawada  Mental  Hospital  found  the  area  

insufficient and shifted to a larger premises in or about  

1990. Ever since then, property bearing No.1300-1303 is  

not in use. In fact the state government de-requisitioned  

and surrendered back the adjoining premises No.1304-1305  

1

to  its  owners.  On  27.2.1994,  the  first  respondent  

purchased premises No.1300-1303 from the previous owners.  

The first respondent filed W.P.No.2310/1996 praying for a  

direction to the state government to derequisition the  

said  property.  However,  the  said  writ  petition  was  

withdrawn  on  23.7.1996  with  liberty  to  file  a  suit.  

Thereafter,  the  first  respondent  filed  a  civil  suit  

(No.40 of 1997) in the Court of Small Causes Court, Pune,  

for possession against (i) the State Government, (ii) Dy.  

Director  of  Health  Services,  (iii)  Yerawada  Mental  

Hospital, and (iv) the Collector of Pune. The legal heirs  

of previous owners were also impleaded as defendants 5(a)  

to (f) and 6(a) to (e). The said suit is still pending.

4. On  13.2.2004,  the  first  respondent  filed  another  

writ petition (WP No.2206/2004) seeking a direction to  

the appellants to delivery back possession of property  

bearing Nos.1300 to 1303. There was however no prayer for  

derequisitioning the property. A Division Bench of the  

Bombay High Court allowed the said writ petition by the  

impugned order dated 17.2.2005 directing the appellants  

herein to issue an order of derequisition on or before  

3.12.2005 and hand over possession of the property to the  

first respondent. The said order is challenged in this  

appeal by special leave.

2

5. The  Appellants  contend  that  the  proceedings  for  

eviction  initiated  by  the  first  respondent  are  still  

pending and therefore, a writ petition for possession was  

not maintainable. It is submitted that having regard to  

Section 27 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, on  

the date of coming into force of the Bombay Rents, Hotel  

and Lodging Houses Rates Control, Bombay Land Requisition  

and Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Amendment Act,  

1996, that is on 7.12.1996, the State Government or the  

Government  allottee  (in  cases  where  the  requisitioned  

premises  was  allotted  to  someone)  was  deemed  to  have  

become the tenant of the landlord for the purposes of the  

Rent Control Act and therefore, the remedy of the owners  

of  such  property  was  to  seek  eviction  under  the  Rent  

Control Act; and that in the absence of any prayer in the  

writ petition for derequisition of the property, and the  

withdrawal  of  the  earlier  writ  petition  for  

derequisition,  the  High  Court  could  not  have  directed  

derequisition  nor  issue  a  consequential  direction  for  

delivery of the requisitioned property.   

6. The  first  respondent  on  the  other  hand  contended  

that the premises is not being put to any use from 1990  

and  therefore,  there  was  no  justification  for  the  

appellants to continue in possession; that on account of  

non-occupation  and  neglect,  the  premises  has  become  

3

dilapidated  and  some  portions  have  even  been  

unauthorisedly  encroached;  and  that  in  spite  of  these  

facts,  the  appellants  were  unreasonably  refusing  to  

release and deliver back the property to the owner. It  

was alleged that the adjoining premises No.1304-1305 had  

been  derequisitioned/released  and  therefore  there  was  

absolutely  no  justification  for  not  derequisitioning/  

vacating the premises No.1300-1303 belonging to the first  

respondent. It was also contended that Section 27 of the  

Rent Control Act was inapplicable to the said property.  

It was submitted that the prayer for possession in the  

writ  petition  necessarily  includes  a  prayer  for  de-

requisition.

7. On a careful consideration of the averments in the  

writ  petition  (W.P.No.2206  of  2004)  and  the  prayers  

therein,  we  find  that  the  impugned  order  of  the  High  

Court cannot be sustained. The High Court assumed that  

the petition was for derequisitioning the property and  

has directed derequisitioning even though there was no  

prayer for derequisitioning. In the absence of such a  

prayer, the appellants did not have an opportunity to  

meet any claim for derequisition. The High Court did not  

also consider the effect of withdrawal of earlier writ  

petition  for  derequisitioning  and  the  pendency  of  the  

civil court for possession. The impugned order of the  

4

High Court did not also deal with several contentions of  

the first respondent including the contention based on  

release of premises Nos.1304-1305, presumably because it  

was  allowing  the  writ  petition.  There  is  a  need  for  

dealing with those contentions also. The impugned order  

therefore calls for interference.

8. In  view  of  the  above,  we  allow  this  appeal,  set  

aside the impugned order dated 17.2.2005 and consequently  

writ petition will stand restored to file of the High  

Court. The High Court may grant an opportunity to the  

parties to amend their pleadings, if necessary, and then  

decide the matter in accordance with law. Having regard  

to the fact that the matter relates to a requisition made  

in 1942 and the submission that from 1990, the property  

has not been used and that the property is in a very  

dilapidated  condition,  we  request  the  High  Court  to  

dispose of the matter expeditiously. All contentions are  

left open.

___________________J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ____________________J. January 15, 2010.     (Surinder Singh Nijjar)  

5