Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
Cyril Ribeiro - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3650 of 1988
Decided On : 23-04-2025
(A) Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, 1948 - Sections 6, 8C(1), 7(2)(b), and 27 - Writ Petition for possession of requisitioned flat - Petitioner sought to de-requisition Flat No.G-1, arguing that the indefinite requisition was arbitrary and illegal - Court held that Original Respondent No.3 was not a deemed tenant as he had retired before the cut-off date and an eviction order was passed against him prior to that date - The court emphasized that the status of deemed tenancy under the Rent Act, 1999 does not apply to those against whom eviction orders were issued before the specified date. (Paras 32, 66, 71)
(B) Requisition of property - The Supreme Court has established that requisition cannot be continued indefinitely and must be reasonable - The court reiterated that the rights of landlords must be recognized and upheld. (Paras 49, 60)
(C) Legislative intent - The amendments to the Rent Act, 1947 and the Requisition Act were aimed at protecting tenants who were in occupation before a certain date, but did not extend to those with prior eviction orders. (Paras 56, 68)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, owner of Flat No.G-1, sought to reclaim possession from Original Respondent No.3, who had been allotted the flat but had retired and was subject to an eviction order. The court examined the historical context of the requisition and relevant amendments to the law.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Original Respondent No.3 was not in legal possession as of the cut-off date and thus could not claim deemed tenancy.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Original Respondent No.3 was a deemed tenant under the Rent Act, 1999, and the validity of the eviction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Original Respondent No.3's retirement and the prior eviction order disqualified him from being considered a deemed tenant, emphasizing the need for legal occupation for such status.
Result: Writ Petition granted; Respondent Nos.3A and 3B ordered to vacate Flat No.G-1 within six months.
JUDGMENT :
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition seeks the following final reliefs:
(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamas of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 its officer, subordinates, servants and agents to forebear from continuing flat No. G1 on the ground floor of Beacon Building situate at Plot No.144. TPS Corner of west and South Avenue Santacruz (West) Bombay 400054 under requisition and to release the said flat from requisition and hand over possession of the same to the Petitioner.
(a1) that this Hon'ble court be pleased to exercise jurisdiction under Article 266 of the constitution of India and to issue a Writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ordering and directing the Respondents, their offices servants and agents to within 3 months or within such time as this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant to respondent No.3, hand over to the Petitioner quiet vacant and peaceful possession of the Flat No.G-1, Ground floor, "Beacon", at Plot No.144 TPS Corner of west and south, R.K. Mission Marg Avenue, santacruz (west)Mumbai-400054;
3. The Petitioner is the owner of Flat No.G-1 on the Ground Floor of the building known as Beacon situated at Plot No.144, TPS Corner of West & South Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai. (hereinafter referred to as “Flat No.G-1”).
4. The Petitioner’s father, one Nicholas V.Ribeiro was the owner of the said building Beacon. As Nicholas V.Ribeiro was a front officer servingoutside Bombay, the said property was being looked after and managed by Mrs.M.A.Ribeiro, the mother of Nicholas Ribeiro. Mrs.Ribeiro, being desirous of letting out South flat No.1 on the top floor of the Beacon building to one A.R.Moraes, gave an intimation to the Controller of Accommodation of the State of Bombay (Respondent No.2) as required under Section 6 (1) of the Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, 1948 (“the Requisition Act”).
5. By an Order dated 23rd August 1949, the said South flat was requisitioned by the then Government of Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 6 of the Requisition Act.
6. By an Order dated 23rd August 1949, the said flat was allotted to one B.P.Nayak.
7. By an Agreement dated 6th January 1978 entered into between Nicholas Ribeiro, as the Vendor, and one Akhtar Hasan Rizvi, trading in the name of M/s.Rizvi Builders, as the purchaser, Nicholas Ribeiro agreed to permit the said Akhtar Hasan Rizvi to develop the said property for the consideration, and on the terms and conditions, mentioned in the said Agreement. As a part of the consideration, Nicholas Ribeiro was to receivemonetary consideration and four flats in the newly constructed building i.e.two flats on the ground floor and two flats on the first floor.
8. Thereafter, an Agreement dated 2nd March 1979 was entered into between Nicholas Ribeiro and the State of Maharashtra, through Respondent No.2, whereby demolition of the said property was permitted on the terms that the requisitioned flat i.e. South flat No.1 shall be de-requisitioned and demolished and a flat admeasuring 800 sq.ft in the newly constructed building shall be offered to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for requisition.
9. By an Order dated 2nd August 1979, the said South flat No.1 in Beacon building was de-requisitioned by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 pursuant to the said Agreement dated 2nd March 1979.
10. Thereafter, a Suit was instituted by Nicholas Ribeiro against Rizvi in this Court, being Suit No.302 of 1981. In the said Suit, a consent decree was passed on 9th July 1982. The said consent decree inter alia provided that Flat No.G-1 on the ground floor of the newly constructed building would be allotted to Nicholas Ribeiro. Nicholas Ribeiro nominated the Petitioner as a
The court ruled that individuals with prior eviction orders cannot claim deemed tenancy under the Rent Act, 1999, emphasizing the necessity of legal occupation for such status.
The State Government exceeded its jurisdiction under the U.P. Rent Control Act by restoring a sub-letting order that contravenes established tenant rights, emphasizing the requirement that tenants oc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties should be held to their commitments made before the Rent Controller and the court, and that pleadings before the Rent Controller shoul....
The requisitioning of accommodation for government employees is deemed a public purpose and the courts are limited in scrutinizing such administrative actions.
Tenancy rights under a Will cannot override specific contractual terms prohibiting assignment without consent, rendering unauthorized occupation invalid under the Public Premises Act.
The court affirmed that the protected tenant's rights under the Tenancy Act cannot be overridden by private agreements or settlements that do not comply with statutory requirements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which deals with the declaration of vacancy of a tenement. The judgment emphasizes th....
PP Act prevails over state rent acts for evicting unauthorized occupants from public premises, including pre-existing tenancies post-acquisition; unauthorized assignment, decades-long rent default, a....
The tenant's acquisition of alternative accommodation under Section 13(1)(l) of the Rent Act justified eviction, with the principle of greater hardship being irrelevant in this context.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
