The power of requisition under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition & Acquisition) Act 1948 can only be exercised for the purposes specifically mentioned in the Act, and that the expression 'supplies and services essential to the life of the community' cannot be given a wide meaning to include all matters and things which are not strictly essential to the life of the community.

1. THIS writ application was moved by the petitioner company challenging an order of Requisition No. 21682 dated 17r. h July 1985 which is annexure 'b' to the writ petition under the provision of Sub-section 1 of section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition 8 Acquisition) "act 1948. The Additional District Magistrate, Howrah requisitioned the property in question which was already in the occupation of Mesrs. Remington Rand of India Ltd., the Respondent No. 5 herein, for the purpose of providing proper facilities for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and for creating employment opportunities to the people.

2. THE facts relevant for the purpose of this case in short are as follows :

By a registered Deed of lease dated 16th of September 1959, the petitioner company who was the owner of' the Jute Mill in Shibpur, Howrah granted a lease of a portion of its Mill promises in favour of the Respondent No. 5, Remington Rand of India Ltd. for a term of 20 years begining from let of September 1959 which expired with effect from 1st of September 1979 at a monthly rent of Rs. 17,250/ -. Before the expiry of the said lease period of 20 years the petitioner company by the notice dated 7th of February 1979 required the respondent no. 5, Remington Rand of India Ltd. to deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the said premises to the petitioner company on the expiry of the period stipulated in the Deed of Lease dated 16th September, 1959. After the lease period-expired with effect from 1st September 1979, the Respondent company did not deliver possession of the said premises. Thereafter, on 21st of April, 1980 the petitioner company filed a suit for eviction of the respondent company in Title Suit No. 46 of 1980 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Howrah. Upon the petitioners' application made before this High Court under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent for transfer of the said suit to this Hon'ble court, the said suit was transferred before this Court for expeditious hearing on the basis of the allegation that the Respondents were delaying the final hearing of the said suit on some plea or other. On 29th May, 1985, the said suit appeared for final hearing and on that day the Respondent Company moved an application for amendment of the written statement. The said amendment was allowed by His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. C. Basak of this Court and the matter was directed to be listed on 4th June, 1985. On that date in course of hearing of the said amendment application, His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. C. Basak of this Court enquired from the parties whether the suit could be settled by the parties agreeing upon the grant of fresh demise in favour of the Respondent company at an enhanced rate of rent fixed having regard to the market rate. The matter was adjourned for effecting a settlement between the parties. Thereafter, the respondent company offered the terms of settlement to the petitioner company, but the petitioner company could not agree and according to the petitioner company, the Respondents have no intention to pay the market rate of rent for the said premises and the Respondent company wanted to continue in occupation of the premises at the old rate of rent fixed in the year 1959. It is stated by the petitioner company that the Respondent company is a flourishing concern and the available profit before taxation for the year ending 31st March 1984 was Rs. 240. 01 lakhs and the net profit was rs. 86. 01 lakhs. It is stated that the Respondent company offered dividend during that period at the rate of 20%. When the suit was adjourned for effecting a compromise between the parties, this order of requisition was served upon the petitioner company for continuing in occupation of the premises in question of the respondent company. This order of requisition is under challenge.

The petitioner company challenged the validity of the order of requisition on the ground that an order of requisit