V. M. KANADE, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioners seek an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the order of requisition passed in or about October 1985 in respect of Flat No. 307, situated at b-Wing, Aradhana Co-operative Housing society Ltd. , G. D. Ambekar Marg, Naigaum, mumbai, is null and void. The petitioners also seek a declaration that Section 9 (1a) (b) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 is arbitrary, and therefore, illegal and null and void. The petitioners further seek a declaration that the said flat stands derequisitioned and therefore, the said flat be handed over to the petitioners. FACTS:

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are as under:-"the petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian companies Act, 1913 and had engaged in the business of developing and constructing buildings. The respondent No. 1 is the state of Maharashtra, which had requisitioned the said Flat No. 307, more particularly described in paragraph-1 hereinabove, and had allotted the same to the Commissioner of Police, pursuant to the requisition order dated 23rd September, 1954. The supreme Court in the case of (Grahak Sanstha Manch and Ors. v. State of maharashtra), reported in 1995 (1) bom. C. R. 295 directed the State Government to derequisition the premises which were requisitioned earlier and specific time was granted to comply with the said order, in view of the said decision of the supreme Court, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioners seeking an order of quashing the order of requisition passed by the respondents in October, 1985 and further seeking vacant possession of the premises from the Government. However, in the meantime, the maharashtra Government amended the provisions of Bombay Rent Act and declared that an allottee of the Government would be a deemed tenant of the premises. In view of the amendment, the petitioners challenge the validity of the said amendment of Section 9 (1a) (b) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. "

( 3 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of (Welfare Association A. R. P. , Maharashtra and anr. v. Ranjit P. Gohil and Ors.), reported in 2003 (6) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)733 : A. I. R. 2003 s. C. 1266 upheld the validity of the said amendment which was made in the Rent control Act. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that though the validity of the amended Act was upheld in the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent No. 4 would not get benefit of the amended provisions and therefore, he cannot be treated as deemed tenant under the said provisions.

( 4 ) THE short point which falls for our consideration is whether the order of allotment is protected by the Amendment Act of 1996 to the Bombay Rent Act. The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, by virtue of section 7 (2), defines the word "government allottee". Section 27 of the said Act grants protection to such Government allottee in whose favour the premises were requisitioned or continued to be under requisition and he is deemed to be a tenant under the maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act". The aforesaid provisions were challenged in this Court. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the case of welfare Association (supra), confirmed the judgment and order delivered by this Court and upheld the validity of the said Section 7 (2) (a) (b), and Section 27 of the said Act.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the respondent No. 4, who was initially impleaded as respondent no. 4, viz. M. A. Khan, retired and left the premises before the date mentioned in Section 27 viz. 7th December, 1996. Learned Counsel therefore submitted that by virtue of the flat being vacated by the said Shri Khan, who was occupying the premises on the date on which the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and the aforesaid p