1965 (10) TMI 74 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the premises were "premises" within the meaning of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.
2. Whether the requisition order was valid and made for a public purpose.
3. Whether the requisition order was mala fide.
4. Whether there was a conflict between the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the premises were "premises" within the meaning of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948:
The appellants contended that the premises were not "premises" as defined in the Act because they intended to occupy the room themselves and did not intend to let it out. The Court held that the words "let or intended to be let separately" applied only to a part of a building and not to a whole building. The definition did not require the intention to let at the time of requisition. The Court concluded that the room was "premises" within the Act as it was let out previously and the landlord's change of intention did not affect its status.

2. Whether the requisition order was valid and made for a public purpose:
The appellants argued that the requisition was not for a public purpose as required by the Act. The Court noted that public purpose includes providing shelter for a homeless person. Although K. A. Nambiar was evicted and assumed to be homeless, the Court found that the requisition annulled the eviction decision, which was made on the ground that the appellants required the premises for their own occupation. The Court held that the requisition order was not within the spirit or intendment of the Act and was thus invalid.

3. Whether the requisition order was mala fide:
The appellants argued that the requisition order was mala fide because it was made to restore possession to K. A. Nambiar, who had been evicted. The Court held that the requisitioning authorities had misconceived their powers under the Act and that the requisition was not intended to restore possession to an evicted tenant. The Court found that the requisition order was made in bad faith as it set aside the court's eviction order.

4. Whether there was a conflict between the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948:
The appellants contended that there was a conflict between the two Acts. The Court noted that the Rent Act allowed eviction if the landlord required the premises for personal occupation and imposed penalties if the landlord did not occupy the premises within a month. The Requisition Act required the landlord to notify the government of the vacancy and prohibited occupation for a month. The Court held that the Requisition Act did not apply where the landlord had been permitted to recover possession for personal occupation, thereby harmonizing the two Acts.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the requisition order was invalid as it was not made for a public purpose within the contemplation of the Act and was mala fide. The Court allowed the appeal with costs, setting aside the requisition and allotment orders. The majority opinion held that the requisitioning authorities had misconceived their powers and that the Requisition Act did not apply to premises where the landlord had been permitted to recover possession for personal occupation.