JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-Leave granted.

2. Respondent No. 3 was a State Government employee. He retired from Government service on 30th September, 1993. As a Govt. servant, respondent No.3 was allotted the premises in question. These were requisitioned premises, having been requisitioned under the order of requisition dated 17th April, 1958 under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The order of requisition has been set aside but respondent No. 3 continues to be in possession of the premises. Has respondent No. 3 any right to continue with the possession of the premises despite order of requisition having been set aside and respondent No. 3 having retired from service, is the question for consideration before us.

3. The appellant and respondent No.4 are the co-owners of the property. In this appeal, we are not concerned with their inter se disputes which are the subject matter of Suit No. 4120 of 1990 which suit is for partition and other consequential reliefs is pending in the High Court of Bombay. Under an ad interim order passed in that suit, on derequisition the property is to be restored to respondent No. 4 and has to be kept by him by way of interim measure.

4. The appellant