Requisition of premises for a private profit-making institution is not a public purpose under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947.

1. THE petitioner is the trustee of premises No. 133b, Shyama Prosad Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, which is a trust property. According to the petitioner she let out part of the premises, in the ground floor, to her son Sunil Kumar Das Gupta, opposite party No. 5 in this Rule who in his turn sub-let one hall and one room, out of the portion let to him, to Naranarayan Ghosh, opposite party No. 4.

2. NARANARAYAN Ghosh, however, in his affidavit-in-opposition, denies the case as made by the petitioner. He says that he is the Secretary of Naranarayan Institute of Culture, an institution for the teaching of dancing and music to girls. In such capacity, he obtained a lease from month to month of one hall, one room, a privy and a bath, in the ground floor of premises No. 133b, Shyama Prosad Mukherjee Road, from the petitioner directly, some time in the year 1952. He further says that the lease was taken for accommodation of Naranarayan Institute of Culture, an institution registered under the Societies Registration act and aided by the Education Department of the State Government as an institution for imparting education in music and dancing. He makes a definite case that the tenancy consisted not only of a hall and a room but also of a privy and a bath.

By an order made under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, one hall, one room, one privy and a bath, in occupation of Naranarayan Institute of Culture was requisitioned for a public purpose. The order bears the date November 7, 1958. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Land Acquisition Collector, the nature of the public purpose is: admitted to be "accommodation of the Naranarayan Institute of Culture, which is a public institution for training of dancing and music."

3. THERE is considerable dispute as to whether the bath room was in occupation of the Naranarayan Institute of Culture. According to the petitioner there was no bath room included within the tenancy. According to the affidavit-in-opposition of Naranarayan Ghosh, opposite party No. 4, the bath room formed part of the tenancy. The Land Acquisition Collector, in his affidavit-in-opposition, states that the possession of the bath room was taken on November 7, 1958 and was made over to the institution but subsequently the petitioner forcibly dispossessed the allottee institution and locked the bathroom and privy under requisition. He goes on to say further:

"a notice under section 4 (1) (a) of the Act was served on her on 24-12-58 directing her to hand over possession of the said bath and privy by 5-1-59. The petitioner refused to accept the said notice and the same was, therefore, served by hanging on the outer-door of her residence. But in spite of service of the said notice by hanging the petitioner did not hand over possession of the bath and privy and these were kept under lock and key. As this caused difficulties and inconvenience in the running of the said school meant for girls, Government by an order dated 3-3-59 directed the First Land Acquisition Collector to take over possession of the said bath and privy, under section 9 of the Act, with Police help. Accordingly, possession of the privy and bath was taken over by ' breaking open the lock on 5-3-59 and was made over to the said Naranarayan Institute of Culture. It was then found that the bath room had been completely demolished by the petitioner. She was, therefore, served with a notice dated 27-5-59, under section 4 (1) (b) of the Act, by registered post to reconstruct the bath room which was intentionally demolished by her during her temporary forcible occupation, with the object of creating inconvenience to the school and to force the Government to release the property from requisition."

4. THE statement as to demolition of bath room is not expressly denied in the affidavit-in-reply, although there is a general statement in the said affidavit that there was no bath at all. Aggrieved