The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a proper enquiry and show cause notice to determine the legal status of a tenant in forfeited property under SAFEMA, and the authority's obligation to determine the status of a person in possession of forfeited property.

JUDGMENT - BOBDE S.A., J.:---The petitioner, who claims to be a tenant of premises forfeited under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, in short "SAFEMA", has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15th January, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Competent Authority constituted under the SAFEMA directing the petitioner to handover the property in his possession to Competent Authority under the SAFEMA i.e. respondent No. 2 within ten days of the receipt of the order. The order has been passed on the basis that it is illegally acquired property of one Gawde.

2. The property in question is a building consisting of ground plus one floor admeasuring about 580 sq.ft. known as Ganesh Bhuvan situate on a plot or piece of land admeasuring 64.1 sq.metres. City Survey No. 1103, Plot No. 38-B, Sub-Plot No. 19, T-95, Hira Buwa Gawde Marg, (Juhu Tara Road) Juhu Koliwada, Bombay 400 049, hereinafter referred to as "the property in question".

3. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the property in question since April, 1959. His case is that he was inducted into the premises by one Gulabbai Govind Chavan and her husband Govind Raghunath Chavan. According to the petitioner, he was put in exclusive possession of the property in question as a monthly tenant. He claims to be in possession of monthly rent receipts issued by the said Chavan in his favour from about April, 1959. While the petitioner continued as a tenant, it appears that the said Chavan sold the property in question to one Laxman Narayan Gawde. The petitioner attorned his tenancy to Gawde. Petitioner claims to be in possession of the rent receipt dated 28th December, 1970 issued in his favour by Mr. Gawde in the sum of Rs. 50/- being the monthly rent for the premises for the month of December, 1970. According to the petitioner he continued paying rent to Gawde till the year 1977. It is the petitioners case that Gawde did not pass the receipts for all the rent paid by the petitioner.

4. In the year 1977 the respondent No. 1 acting under the provisions of SAFEMA declared all the properties belonging to Gawde, including the property in question as illegally acquired property. The property was declared forfeited to the respondent No. 1, Union of India under the provisions of SAFEMA. The petitioner has stated that he has paid, and continues to pay, the monthly rent of Rs. 50/- every month to the respondent No. 1 and/or respondent No. 2 authority and claims to have the rent receipts.

5. The petitioner states that he resides with his family on the first floor and has all the necessary licences for carrying on business of Tea Shop-cum-Store-cum-Hotel on the ground floor of the premises. He claims to have been in lawful and in uninterrupted possession as a tenant, initially of Chavan, later of Gawde and then of respondent No. 1, the Central Government without any disturbance.

6. The respondent No. 2 issued a summons dated 28th December, 1994, about seven years after the property was forfeited to the Central Government. By the summons, the petitioner was called upon to give the list of documents, to produce certain documents mentioned in the notice. It is, however, found that notice itself does not contain the list of documents. There is a foot note to the notice which reads as follows:---

"1) Rent in arrears in respect of Plot No. 38-B, Sub-Plot No. 19 of late L.N. Gawde.

2) Possession of the above property for public auction."

7. We are satisfied that this notice is vague and improper. While a reading of the summons shows that it is issued for the purpose of requiring the petitioner to produce certain documents, it appears to be a disguise for demanding arrears of rent in respect of the property in question and also for the rest of the property for public auction. There is no recital in the summons calling upon the petitioner to produce evidence showing his interest in the property in question and calling upon him to show cause

Click Here to Read the rest of this document