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

1949 Supreme(Bom) 4

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
COYAJEE, J.
Tarabai Jivanlal Parekh
Versus
Lala Padamchand
O.C.J. Suit No. 1766 of 1947,
Decided On : 27-01-1949

Advocates:
M.M. Desai and Purshottam Tricumdas - for Plaintiff. M.S. Vakil and M.L. Maneksha - for Defendant.

The requisitioning order was temporary and did not affect the tenant's vested interest in the tenancy.

Headnote:

Requisitioning - Landlord and Tenant - Defence of India Act, Ordinance XIX (19) of 1945, Act XVII (17) of 1947, Transfer of Property Act - R. 75(a), S. 19(a), S. 19(b), S. 105, S. 106, S. 111 - The court discussed the requisitioning of the flat, the termination of the landlord-tenant relationship, and the legal provisions under the Defence of India Act, Ordinance XIX (19) of 1945, Act XVII (17) of 1947, and the Transfer of Property Act. It emphasized that the requisitioning order was temporary and did not affect the tenant's vested interest in the tenancy.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the defendant had no right to obtain possession of a flat from the Government and for an order against the defendant to hand over possession of the flat. The defendant was a monthly tenant of the flat, which was requisitioned by the Government. The plaintiff claimed that the tenancy terminated when the flat was requisitioned.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the requisitioning of the flat did not affect the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the defendant continued to be a monthly tenant of the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed with costs.

Issues: The main issue was whether the requisitioning of the flat terminated the landlord-tenant relationship.

Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the legal provisions under the Defence of India Act, Ordinance XIX (19) of 1945, Act XVII (17) of 1947, and the Transfer of Property Act to determine the impact of requisitioning on the landlord-tenant relationship. It emphasized that the requisitioning order was temporary and did not affect the tenant's vested interest in the tenancy.

Final Decision: The suit was dismissed with costs.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff has filed this said for declaration that the defendant has no right to obtain possession of a certain flat from Government and for an order against the defendant to hand over possession of the flat, being flat No. 13, to the plaintiff. It appears that the defendant is described as the person who was a monthly tenant of flat No. 13 in a building known as Jivan Vihar which was requisitioned by Government on 8th August 1914. The possession of the flat was taken from the defendant, who claims to be the tenant, on 5th May 1945. The Government derequisitioned the flat on 27th May 1947. On the order of derequisition being passed, the Government gave possession of the flat to the party from whom the Government had taken possession at the date of the requisition, namely, the defendant.

2. In short, the plaintiffs case is that at the date when the requisition order was served both on the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendants tenancy of the flat came to an end.

3. The facts of the case are not in dispute, and the only question before the Court is to answer the following issue, namely,

"Whether on the Government requisitioning the flit in the occupation of the defendant, the relationship of landlord and tenant, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant, terminated ?"

The orders as regards requisitioning were served both on the plaintiff as the landlord and on the defendant as the tenant. It is pointed out by counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff that the orders clearly indicate that any compensation for such requisition, if any, is to be paid to the landlord, the plaintiff, and that the defendant was evicted by being summarily asked to hand over the premises in suit to Government.

4. For the purpose of decision of this issue, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Defence of India Act, as well as to Ordinance XIX (19) of 1945, and to Act XVII (17) of 1947, and certain relevant sections of the Transfer of Property Act.

5. The order made be requisitioning was made under R. 75(a), Dafence of India Rules. Rule 75(a) talks of the power of the Government to make order in writing, requisitioning any property, movable or immovable. Then Sub-s. (2) of the rule says that where the Government had requisitioned any property under Sub-r. (1), the Government may use or deal with it as may appear to it expedient, and may acquire it. It is clear that under Sub-r. (3), on the notice of acquisition being served, on the very day on which the notice is served, the property vests in the Government. This is on the same lines as the notification under the Land Acquisition Act, whereby the property passes from the owner to the Government and vests in the Government.

This power to acquire requisitioned property is again referred to in S. 19(a), Defence of India Act, which is in similar terms as the rule I have referred to above. Under S. 19(b) the condition of derequisitioning is set out. By S. 19(b), the Government, on derequisitioning premises, is to hold an enquiry, or cause an enquiry to be made, and thereafter specify by order in writing the person to whom possession of the property shall be given. Under sub-s. (2) of S. 19(b), however, the delivery of the possession of the property discharges all liabilities of the Government in respect of the property, but the sub-section says that that shall not prejudice any rights in respect of the property which any other person may be entitled by due process of law to enforce against the parson to whom possession of the property is given.

6. Thereafter, Ordinance XIX (19) of 1946 was passed to provide for the continuance of the requisitioning of premises, notwithstanding the expiration of the Dafence of India Act, 1939. The provisions there under as regards release from requisition are in identical terms as set out by me above. The Ordinance was repealed by S. 10 of Act (XVII [17] of 1947), which was an Act passed for the purpose of providing certain emergency power





















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