The competent authority's jurisdiction under Section 6(2) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, was limited to ascertaining the person from whom possession was taken at the time of requisition or his successor-in-interest. It could not adjudicate on the rights of any person claiming against the tenant or his successor-in-interest.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed that the Estate Officer be directed to forthwith de-requisition the remaining portions of the property known as York Hotel Building requisitioned in the year 1942 and may further be restrained from delivering possession of the de-requisitioned portions to respondent No. 3 or any other person and respondent No. 3 may be restrained from taking possession of the said property. Respondents impleaded in the petition are Union of India and Estate. Officer. Directorate of Estates, as respondents 1 and 2, Shri Ram Pershad. respondent No. 3 as also eleven other persons as respondents 4 to 14 who are stated to be actually in occupation of the property sought to be de-requisitioned.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of the property known as York Hotel Building situated in Block k . Connaught Circus, New Delhi, comprising old Municipal Numbers 8791 to 8805. By orders dated October 19, 1942 and October 31, 1942 this building with its first and second floors in terms of the petition complete with all appurtenances situated at Connaught Circus. New Delhi was requisitioned by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules. At the time of reauisition the whole property belonged to one Haji Mohammad Din Chhatriwala, the father of the present petitioner who before his death gifted away this property to the petitioner. The property was requisitioned in 1942 for defence purposes and after the conclusion of the War, the Defence Department handed it over to the Estate Officer, Directorate of Estates. Government of India. During this period, Haji Mohammad Din Chhatriwala. while he was alive, made efforts to have the property released from reauisition but with no apparent success. On June 3, 1947, in his lifetime, he entered into an agreement in writing with respondent No. 3 to lease out the property mentioned in the said agreement to him, on its being de-requisitioned. By order dated August 23, 1965, the Competent Authority appointed under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (XXX of 1952) (hereafter called "the Act") released a part of the reauisitioned property consisting of flat Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, and 26 on the first floor and numbers 28 and 32 on the second floor. By another order dated November 6/8, 1965, the said Authority further de-requisitioned flat No. 25 on the first floor of this Building. By yet another order dated August 17. 1966 it also de-requisitioned flat No. 27 on the first floor of this Building. The remaining portions of the property, continued to be under reauisition. In the year 1962, respondent No. 3, on the basis of the agreement to lease, entered into by him with Haji Mohammad Din Chhatriwala, filed a suit against the latter in Civil Court and prayed for a mandatory injunction directing him to hand over possession of the property mentioned in the agreement

"as de-requisitioned or as and when the whole or part of it is de-requisitioned". On June 14, 1968, the suit was decreed. Possession of portions of the property, namely, the flats above-referred released during the pendency of the suit in 1965, according to the petitioner. was not delivered to Haji Mohammad Din Chhatriwala, and an order under sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act was issued in respect of the property but respondent No. 3 took over its possession. In spite of having got the possession of the de-requisitioned flats he did not pay rent for the same to the owner. On April 30, 1970, after Haji Mohammad Din had died, the petitioner, therefore, filed a suit against him for recovery of Rupees 24326-28 on account of arrears of rent due from him in respect of the flats. The respondent denied his liability to pay any rent and in the written-statement dated 29th May, 1970 amongst others, pleaded that the tenancy created in pursuance of the agreement was to be an indivisible