1958 (9) TMI 91 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the intimation of vacancy under Section 6(2) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.
2. Whether the landlord's occupation of premises after the intimation period was lawful.
3. The effect of the landlord's failure to give intimation by registered post.
4. The legality of the requisition order dated May 11, 1957.
5. The contention that the landlord was not entitled to relief due to lack of good faith.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Intimation of Vacancy under Section 6(2):

The petitioner argued that the vacancy that occurred on January 20, 1954, was properly intimated to the government, and after one month, he lawfully occupied the premises on March 3, 1954. The respondent contended that the intimation given on January 27, 1954, was not in compliance with Section 6(2) as it was not sent by registered post. The court referred to the unreported judgment in Sayed Abdul Hamid v. The State of Bombay, which held that the failure to give proper notice by registered post did not prevent the state from requisitioning the premises.

2. Lawful Occupation after Intimation Period:

The petitioner claimed that an intimation by registered post was given on November 3, 1954, and received on November 8, 1954. Therefore, after one month, his occupation of the premises became lawful, terminating the vacancy. The respondent argued that the intimation was not given within seven days of the premises becoming vacant, as required by Section 6(2), thus not authorizing the petitioner to occupy the premises.

3. Effect of Failure to Give Intimation by Registered Post:

The court analyzed Sub-section (3) of Section 6, which prohibits the landlord from letting or occupying the premises without giving intimation and waiting for one month after the intimation is received. The petitioner argued that the phrase "before giving the intimation" should not be interpreted to include the timing specified in Sub-section (2). The court agreed, stating that the legislative intent was not to leave premises vacant indefinitely due to a delay in intimation. The court emphasized that the landlord's obligation was to give intimation and wait for one month, irrespective of the delay in sending the intimation.

4. Legality of the Requisition Order Dated May 11, 1957:

The court held that the intimation given by registered post on November 3, 1954, and received on November 8, 1954, was valid. Therefore, the petitioner's occupation after one month was lawful, terminating the vacancy. Consequently, the government's power to requisition the premises ceased. The court ruled that the requisition order dated May 11, 1957, was invalid as it was based on a vacancy that had ceased to exist.

5. Good Faith and Entitlement to Relief:

The respondent argued that the petitioner did not show abundant good faith, a requirement for obtaining a writ. The court noted that the petitioner's statements regarding the occupation of the premises by other persons in 1956 were immaterial to the current petition. The court found no substance in the respondent's complaint and ruled that the petitioner was entitled to relief.

Conclusion:

The court directed the issuance of a writ of mandamus, setting aside the requisition order dated May 11, 1957, and the possession order dated May 30, 1957. The court made no order as to costs, considering the petitioner succeeded on a ground raised after extensive hearings. The court allowed the government to retain possession of the premises until June 10, 1958.

Appeal Analysis:

In the appeal, the court examined whether the landlord's intimation on January 27, 1954, complied with the law. The court held that the requirement to send the intimation by registered post was directory, not mandatory. The court emphasized that the landlord's failure to follow the prescribed mode did not invalidate the intimation, as the substance of the intimation was given.

Conclusion of Appeal:

The court concluded that the requisition order was invalid as the intimation was validly given, and the landlord's occupation after one month was lawful. However, the court found that the petitioner did not show good faith, as required for obtaining a writ. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial judge's order, and dismissed the petition, with no order as to costs.