Back
High Court Of Calcutta
RAMENDRA MOHAN DATTA, C. K. BANERJEE
ELGIN PROPERTIES - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 205 Of 1980 And Matter No. 1439 Of 1980
Decided On : 09/30/1982
The order of requisition is vague, indefinite, incapable of execution and is invalid. The order of requisition not having been served on Elgin Properties in accordance with the provision of Section 3 (2) of the Act of 1947 the same could not be given effect to and the steps taken in aid thereof were all illegal, bad and invalid and remained inoperative and of no effect. The assertion made on behalf of the State Government that there was a public purpose in requisitioning the said premises, is wholly untenable and cannot be supported by the records disclosed by the State Government.
Fact of the Case:
Elgin Properties, the appellant, challenged an order of requisition bearing No. 13/80 REQN dated 17th April, 1980 issued by the State of West Bengal in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947. The requisition was made to allow Caxton and Co., a private printing press, to occupy the premises and to carry on its business therein. Elgin Properties argued that the order was mala fide, vague, and that it was not served on them in accordance with Section 3(2) of the Act. The State of West Bengal argued that the order was made for a public purpose, namely, to prevent the loss of employment of the workers employed by Caxton and Co.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order of requisition was mala fide, vague, and that it was not served on Elgin Properties in accordance with Section 3(2) of the Act. The Court further held that the order was not made for a public purpose.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of requisition was mala fide? 2. Whether the order of requisition was vague? 3. Whether the order of requisition was served on Elgin Properties in accordance with Section 3(2) of the Act? 4. Whether the order of requisition was made for a public purpose?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the order of requisition was mala fide because it was made with the object of frustrating and/or nullifying the decree of ejectment which had been affirmed up to the Supreme Court level and to allow Caxton and Co. to continue in that very same premises in respect of which they had been adjudged trespassers by all the different Courts of law in the ejectment proceeding. 2. The Court held that the order of requisition was vague because it did not specify the portion of the premises which was sought to be requisitioned and the description of the requisitioned area as “portion” was considered as insufficient and vague. 3. The Court held that the order of requisition was not served on Elgin Properties in accordance with Section 3(2) of the Act because the order was served on the Official Trustee who however, in his turn, forwarded a copy thereof to the appellant No. 1. 4. The Court held that the order of requisition was not made for a public purpose because the purpose of the requisition was to enable Caxton and Co. to occupy the premises at a cheap rate and that the State Government had not established any other purpose for the requisition.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Court below, struck down the order of requisition, made the Rule Nisi absolute, and directed a writ of mandamus against the respondents commanding them to withdraw, rescind and recall and to forbear from giving any effect to the impugned order of requisition.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and order of Basak, J. dated June 18, 1980.
( 2 ) THE matter was in respect of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners Elgin Properties challenged an order of requisition bearing No. 13/80 REQN dated 17th April, 1980 issued by the State of West Bengal in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). The Rule Nisi issued herein was discharged by the learned Judge and the application was dismissed. All interim orders were ordered to be vacated. Elgin Properties thereupon preferred this appeal.
( 3 ) THE facts are that the Official Trustee for West Bengal, the respondent No. 6 herein is the trustee to the trust of D. A. David for Davidian Girls' School by and under a deed of trust dated September 28, 1974 and as such trustee is the legal owner of premises No. 1-B, Ashoutosh Mukharjee Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises ). The petitioner appellant Elgin Properties carry on business of development of real property. The Official Trustee granted a registered lease dated September 28, 1974 with the leave of this Court in favour of the appellant for a term of 21 years commencing from May 1, 1969 with an option on the part of the appellant to renew the same for another period of 21 years. The said lease was obtained by Elgin Properties for the purpose of developing the said property. The appellant was authorised to build at their own cost the upper storey or storeys on the existing building or to construct a new building. The existing structures consist of a two storeyed building with the outhouses. At the time of the said lease a portion of the ground floor of the said premises was occupied by Caxton and Co. , the respondent No. 7 herein. Two of the rooms on the ground floor of the said premises are occupied by Martin and Harris Ltd. The remaining portion comprises of baths, lavatories, urinals, common passages and common lobby which were in use of all the occupiers of the said premises. The staircase leading to the first floor begins from the ground floor. There is no access to the first floor of the said premises except through that ground floor.
( 4 ) THE respondent Caxton Employees Union is a registered trade union. The said trade union claims to represent the workers and employees of the said Caxton and Co.
( 5 ) THE appellants claim that Caxton and Co. did not have any tenancy right in respect of the said premises. They could not produce any such right at any point of time. They were held to be trespassers and a decree was passed against them for their eviction. The appellant filed a suit being Suit No. 111 of 1972 against Caxton and Co. , inter alia, for recovery of possession in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. At that point of time the appellant was in possession of the premises by virtue of the agreement for lease entered into by them with the Official Trustee. A decree was passed on March 13, 1976 for eviction of Caxton and Co. Caxton and Co. preferred an appeal to this Court but did not succeed. Caxton and Co. then filed an application for special leave to appeal to Supreme Court of India. There also the special leave petition was dismissed. Elgin Properties then moved the trial Court for proceeding with the execution of the decree in Execution Case No. 14 of 1976. Caxton and Co. then filed Misc. Petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was allowed on the ground that there was discrepancy in the description of the property as given in the decree for possession with a direction to amend the execution petition. Such amendment was allowed by the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. Caxton and Co. then made another application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the same was rejected by the l
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
