SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(SC) 72

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH, R.S. BACHAWAT, J.M. SHELAT AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
M/s. Shah and Co. Bombay, Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and another, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 229 of 1966,
D/- 6-4- 1967.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. J. Sorabji and A. J. Rana, Advocates and M/s. R. A. Gagrat and B. R. Agarwala, Advocates of M/s. Gagrat and Co., for Petitioner, Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (M/s. R. H. Dhebar, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayyar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.J.RANA, B.R.AGRAWAL, N.S.BINDRA, R.A.GAGRAT, R.H.Dhebar, R.N.SACH, S.P.NAIR, SOLI J.SORABJI

Headnote:WHERE CLAIM IS a COLOURABLE DEVICE FOR WHAT IS OTHERWISE REALLY PROHIBITED BY LAW, PETITIONER CANNOT COMPLAIN INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19.

       -held assignment of premises claimed is a colourable device for really obtaining transfer of tenancy right prohibited by Bombay Rent Act, and so assignee cannot claim right on the basis of assignment deed to carry on business there. Complaint of infringement of fundamental right in Article 19 not sustainable.

       

Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J. : In this writ petition, under Art. 32, the petitioner seeks to have quashed, the proceedings taken by the respondents, by way of requisitioning the premises, in question, and also to have the requisition order, dated September 24, 1966, cancelled.

2. The circumstances, under which this writ petition has been filed, may be briefly noted. The petitioner is a partnership firm, carrying on business of importers and dealers in wines and provisions and drugs and medicines, in Bombay. One Mrs. Dorethea Kumpig Leo, who was a tenant of shop No.1, on the ground floor of a building known as Sitaram Building, in C-Block Dadabhoy Naoroji Road, Fort, Bombay, was carrying on business of boot and shoe makers, in the name and style of Messrs. Lee and Co. She was also a tenant of Flat No. G-8/9, situate in the first floor of the same building and also of godown No. H/5, in the same building. The said flat, as well as the godown were occupied by Mrs. Dorethea, as tenant, in connection with and for the purposes of her shoe business.

3. By an assignment deed, dated August 18, 1964. Mrs. Dorethea Kumping Leo is stated to have assigned, in favour of the petitioners, the whole of her business, as a going concern together with the name and goodwill, as also the assets, furniture, fixtures, articles and stock-in-trade, belonging to the said shoe business, together with the full benefit of the tenancy and occupancy rights in the premises, viz., the shop, the flat and the godown, for a sum of Rs. 15,000. The recital in the document is that the parties have agreed that out of the purchase price of Rs. 15,000, Rs. 1,000 is the price of the furniture, fittings, articles and things and stock-in-trade, which have been already delivered over to the assignees, the petitioners. The further recital is that the assignor assigns and transfers to the assignees, all her beneficial interest and goodwill in the business carried on by her, in the name and style of M/s. Lee and Co., and as incidental to such assignment, the assignor transfers her entire interest in the tenancy of Shop No. C-1, on the ground floor, flat No. G/8/9, on the first door and the godown, N. H/5, in the premises, known as Sitaram Building, in Dadabhoy Naoroji Road, Bombay. There is also a recital to the effect that no cash consideration has been paid by the petitioners, as assignees, to their assignor, for the transfer, in their favour, of the tenancy rights, but, on the other hand, those rights are being transferred to them, as incidental, to the sale of the business, as a going concern.

4. The petitioners claim that, after the date of this assignment, in their favour, they have been carrying on, in the said premises, their business as importers of foreign liquor, wines, provisions, drugs and medicines. While so, on or about April 7, 1966, an Inspector of the Office of the Second Respondent, called at the shop of the petitioners and took a statement from one of the partners of the firm. According to the petitioners, a copy of the assignment deed dated August 18, 1964 was also given to him; and the various rent bills and other documents, evidencing their right to be in use and occupation of the shop, are also stated to have been given to the Inspector. Rut, on August 8, 1966, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioners stating that the Government have made inquiries and are considering the question of requisitioning the premises, viz., shop No. 1. Ground Floor, Sitaram Building, C-Block, D.N. Road, Bombay. The petitioners were required to appear before the Officer, with the necessary materials, to show cause as to why the requisitioning of the premises should not be made. The petitioners legal advisers sent a reply, on August 12, 1966, stating that one of the chief partners is absent from Bombay, due to the illness of his father, and requested for postponing the hearing of the matter. A request was also made to the Officer, to indicate as to what was the natu





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top