The Act before us, as extended from the 31st of March, 1950, to the 31st of March, 1953, was not an existing law within the meaning of Article 31(5), but an Act to which the provisions of Article 31(2) applied.

( 1 ) THE appellant, Satya Narayan Nathani, complains of the requisition of a flat in the ground-floor of Premises No. 102-G, Russa Road, which is owned by him. He says that the requisition was not for a public purpose and such requisition being forbidden by the Constitution, it was unlawful and void.

( 2 ) THE history of the requisition which is spread over a period exceeding four years makes strange reading. It appears that in 1945, there was a tenant in the flat whom the appellant did not wish to be there. Accordingly, he filed a suit for his ejectment and obtained a decree. The tenant appealed and having failed before the District Court, preferred a second appeal to this Court in which he failed again. Those proceedings lay between 1945 and 1948. Thereafter, on the 27th of October, 1948, an order under Section 8 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, requisitioning the premises, was served on the appellant, but it was rescinded on the 7th of November, 1949, on a representation being made to the Government that the appellant required the flat for his own use and occupation. ' Some seven months later, a prohibitory order under Section 3 (3) (b) of the Act was made on the 23rd of June, 1951, whereby the appellant was asked not to dispose of the flat without the permission of the Government. Once again, the appellant made a representation and once again the order was rescinded. That rescission was on the 15th of April, 1952.

( 3 ) DURING all that time, the tenant had managed to remain in occupation of the flat. Ultimately, on the 12th of June, 1952, possession was obtained from him. About a month later, on the 10th of July, 1952, a fresh order of requisition was passed under Section 3 (1) of the Act and the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, was directed to take such further action as was necessary. The further action taken was strong action. The First Land Acquisition Collector made an order on the 12th of July, 1952, and directed the appellant to place the flat at his disposal and control at 2-30 p. m. of the same day. In issuing that order, the First Land Acquisition Collector must have over-estimated his powers or forgotten the provisions of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act which requires ten days time to be given for vacating any requisitioned premises. Be that as it may, the appellant refused to comply with the notice and by an application made on the 14th Of July, 1952, asked for time to file an objection. Time till the 16th of the month was granted and on the next day the appellant's objection was filed. He repeated his contention that the flat was required by him for his own use and occupation and thereupon one S. B. Das Gupta, Additional Land Acquisition Collector, was directed to make an enquiry. Das Gupta made his report on the 13th of August, 1952, in which he said that the flat was not really required by the appellant, because he had another house at 177-A, Chittaranjan Avenue, to live in which was "a magnificent building". On receipt of that report, Government directed the First Land Acquisition Collector to pursue the requisition.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, on the 23rd of October, 1952, a fresh notice under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act was issued and this time the provisions of the section were not overlooked. The notice, however, could not be served on the appellant, as he could not be found and intimately it was sent by registered post to 177-A, Chittaranjan Avenue. By the notice the appellant was directed to make over possession of the flat on the 17th of November, 1952. Even on that date, possession could not be obtained, inasmuch as, in the meantime, the appellant had lent out the flat to one S. P. Lahiri for the purpose of his celebrating a marriage there. The next date fixed for delivery of possession was the 5th of December, 1952, but even on that day possession could not be taken, as Lahiri was still in occupation and said that he w