The requisition of premises for the housing of government employees, including refugees, is a public purpose, and the requirements of Section 3(2) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 are complied with if notice of requisition is served on the landlord and the tenant in occupation of the premises.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate writs for cancellation of an order of requisition dated 8th May 1950, purported to be passed under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (Act 5 of 1947) and for direction upon the opposite partics to forbear from giving effect to that order or taking any steps or proceedings thereunder.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of premises No. 2 Chhaku Khansama Lane, Calcutta. The case of the petitioner is that prior to March 1950 the petitioner let out the premises to one Yusuf Miah at a rent of Rs. 300 per month. In or about the month of March 1950 communal disturbances broke out in Calcutta and the area where the petitioner's premises was situated was badly affected by such disturbances, with the result that refugees from East Pakistan and other persons forcibiy ousted all the sub-tenants under the said Yusuf Miah (who were all Muslims) from the said premises. Yusuf Miah immediately thereafter left for East Pakistan. In April 1950 the Nehru-Liaquat Ali Pact being entered into, the said Muslim tenants who were driven out of the said premises by the refugees made an application on or about 20th April 1950 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. North, requesting him to restore possession of the said premises which was in the wrongful occupation of the refugees and others, to the said tenants irom whom possession had been wrongfully taken. This petition of the tenants is signed by one Khaliluddin and one Md. Ishaq and is counter-signed by Abdul Hamid the petitioner in the present proceedings. This petition further shows that one Yusuf was the representative of the tenants who were driven out of the premises and he made complaints to the Thana about the forcible eviction; but no police assistance was available. Yusuf Miah thereafter having left for Pakistan on or about 23rd April 1950. the petitioner at the request of one of the tenants who were actually residing at the said premises granted a tenancy to Abdul Majid for a period of one year and accepted a sum of Rs. 325 as advance payment. This Abdul Majid is respondent 4 in the present proceedings. On 1st May 1950 the Police authorities removed the refugees and other persons who were in wrongful occupation of the premises and made over possession to the Muslim tenants who were in the premises at the time of commencement of the communal disturbances. On 2nd May 1950 the refugees again started creating trouble and threatened the tenants with dire consequences in case they rontinued to occupy the said premises. Apprehending a breach of the peace three of the tenants -- Mushtaq Ahmed, Khaliluddin and Md. Ishaq and the petitioner applied to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for protection. On 8th May 1950 respondent 3 who is the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal issued an order in writing purporting to requisition the said premises under Section 3 (1) of the said W. B. Act 5 of 1947 and notice of such acquisition was sent to the petitioner on or about 30th May 1950 requiring the petitioner to place the property at the disposal of the First Land Acquisition Collector on that date. On the same date the Land Acquisition Collector through his representative took possession of the major portion of the said premises. No notice of the requisition was, however, served on either Yusuf Miah or Abdul Majid who were the direct tenants of the petitioner. On 22nd May 1950, Abdul Majid commenced criminal proceedings against the petitioner on a charge of cheating under Section 420, Penal Code. On or about 24th May 1950 the petitioner made an application to respondent 3 setting out the events that had taken place in the meantime and requesting respondent 3 to recall the order of requisition but the respondent 3 did not accede to the petitioner's application. On 31st May 1950 respondent 2 served notice on the petitioner directing him to remove all article