Judgment

DWIVEDI, J.:- The appellant is the owner of 32, Balrampur House, Mumfordganj, Allahabad. After residing therein for some time, he started living in 33 Pan Dariba, Allahabad with his mother. His own house he let out on September 9, 1964 to the State Government for a period of 5 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The State Government obtained the lease for the purposes of residence or office of the Directorate of Geology and Mining, U. P. The lease was signed by Shri P. N. Singh, Geologist, on behalf of the State Government. In 1967 the appellant had shifted from the house No. 33, Pan Dariba to house No. 398/5, Meerapur, Allahabad. In Meerapur he was living as a tenant.

2. The period of lease with respect to his own house expired on September 9, 1969. The District Magistrate, Allahabad passed as order under S. 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order was made on October 4, 1969. By the order the District Magistrate requisitioned the house to provide accommodation to Shri P. N. Singh. Geologist, Directorate of Geology and Mining , U. P. The appellant was directed to hand over possession of the house within 24 hours after the expiry of 15 days from the date of the service of the order on him.

3. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the validity of the order. One of the grounds of challenge was that the order was made without issuing any notice to him and without giving him a hearing. The petition was dismissed summarily by a Division Bench of the High Court. The argument of want of notice and hearing was not accepted by the High Court. Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.

4. Counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the requisitioning order is invalid for want of notice and hearing Counsel for the District Magistrate says that we should not entertain the argument as it was not raised before the High Court. But we are satisfied on a reading of the judgment of the High Court that the point was raised by the appellant before the High Court. Rejecting the argument, the High Court said: "Where a person is being deprived of his property, it can be said that he should be given an opportunity before the land is acquired; but by requisition the property is taken away from his use for a temporary period and for such requisition such a detailed procedure is not necessary. We are of opinion that the order of requisition is not invalid, nor can S. 3 of the Act be said to be ultra vires simply because it does not provide for a show cause notice to be served on the owner befor the order of requisition can be passed.

5. Coming to the argument, S. 3 of the Act reads:

"If in the opinion of the District Magistrate it is necessary to requisition any accommodation for any public purpose, he may, by order in writing requisition such accommodation and may direct that the possession thereof shall be delivered to him within such period as may be specified in the order; provided that the period so specified shall not be less than 15 days from the date of the service of the order;

Provided also that no building or part of a building exclusively used for religious worship shall be requisitioned under this section.

Provided further that no accommodation which is in the actual occupation of any person shall be requisitioned unless the District Magistrate is further of the opinion that suitable alternative accommodation exists for his needs or has been provided to him."

The section consists of three parts: the main part and the two provisos. Evidently it does not contain an express provision for notice and hearing before the making of the requisitioning order. But it appears to us that such a provision is to be read there by necessary implication. The object of the provision is to requisition an immovable property. Requisitioning of the property deprives the owner