JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :—This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. Notice was issued and the respondents have filed counters and have made submissions on the application. The petitioner is the lessee of the premises No. 7/1A-D, Lindsay Street, Calcutta which is situated in an important commercial locality of Calcutta. The ground floor and mezzanine floor of premises No. 7/1-D, Lindsay Street, Calcutta were requisitioned by Government of West Bengal by order of Requisition No. 21/58 Reqn. dated 25th Feb., 1958 which was substituted by Requisition Order No. 123/60 Reqn. dated 10th Nov., 1960 issued under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947, hereinafter called the said Act for establishing, main sales showroom of respondent No. 4 herein which is the West, Bengal Handicraft and Development Corporation Limited (a West Bengal Government. Undertaking).

2. The area under requisition is 2521 sq. ft. on ground floor and 1677 sq. ft. on mezzanine floor aggregating to 4198 sq. ft. The rent compensation payable under the said Act was fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta on or about 31st March, 1959 at Rs. 1,450/- per month inclusive of taxes and repairs with effect from 10th June, 1958 which was ultimately modified to Rs. 2,500/- per month by. the High Court of Calcutta. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that in fixing the monthly compensation for acquisition by Land Acquisition Collector, the High Court in appeal took into consideration the rate prevailing-in the year 1958, being the year in which the requisition took place. A showroom of respondent No. 4 has been set up there.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that from the very beginning the State Government had the intention of keeping the said requisitioned premises permanently. The petitioner contends that the State Government had ample power to acquire the said property under the Land Acquisition Act at the time of issue of order of requisition. In spite of power to acquire the premises in question, the State Government resorted to requisition the same with the intention of permanently acquiring property in an indirect manner thereby the State Government has acted in improper exercise of powers and author has not exercised the power bona fide, alleges the petitioner.

4. The petitioner further alleges that the object is clearly to avoid the obligation to pay reasonable compensation for acquisition and instead thereof continue occupying the area by paying nominal monthly rent compensation. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the order of requisition has been passed for extraneous purpose and is arbitrary and mala fide. The petitioner also alleges that according to the present letting value prevailing in the market, the value would be over Rs. 43,668/- approximately per month. We are, however, in this application not concerned with that controversy. The petitioner has submitted that requisition can be for temporary period and for a temporary purpose, and the State Government under the garb of requisition has really acquired the property and has avoided the obligation to pay compensation for acquiring the property which will be over Rs. 29 lakhs.

5. According to the petitioner, the West Bengal Act of 1947 which was intended to remain in force for a short temporary period does not contain any provision fop revision of rent. The said Act came into force on or about 1st Jan., 1948. The said Act contains no provision for acquisition of any property but deals solely with requisition of property for making temporary provision. The said Act by various Acts has been renewed from time to time, the last of such renewal as per averments has been extended up to 31st March, 1985. It is further the case-of the petitioner that the said Act cannot be converted into permanent Act and there cannot be a permanent requisition.

6. According to the petitioner, by this process the property in question has