226 and 227 of the Constitution, Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. respondent No.
The District Magistrate transferred that application to the Additional District Magistrate who granted permission.
On March 24, 1964, the Additional District Magistrate respondent No.
According to the allegations made by the appellant herein in the petition which he filed in the High Court under Arts.
1 herein had filed an application for his ejectment in January 1964 before the Rent Controller, Batala but realising the weakness of its case the said respondent resorted to the device of getting the shop requisitioned at the instance of the Labour Commissioner who wrote to the Additional District Magistrate that the shop was required for setting up a Cooperative Consumer Store.
By a numberification issued under s. 10 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure one Mr. Seth was appointed as an Additional District Magistrate with a, Il the powers of the District Magistrate.
sup CI/69 14 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 22, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No.
The landlord applied to the District Magistrate for permission to file a suit for ejectment against the tenant.
719 of 1964.
2, 4 and 5.
Hardev Singh, R.N. Sachthey, and B.D. Sharma, for respondents Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant claims to have been carrying on the business of a Commission Agent in machines in the said shop at Batala for the last 10 years as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.
S. Barlingay, Brij Mohan Lal and Ganpat Rai, for respondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court in which the sole question involved is whether the Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur who had been invested with all the powers of the District Magistrate under s. 10 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure companyld make an order under s. 29 1 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, hereinafter called the Act, requisitioning a shop belonging to Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. which was in occupation of the appellant as.
The facts may be shortly stated.
a tenant.
P. Code.
1 and 3.
The petition was resisted by respondents 1 and 2 and the assertions and companytentions of the appellant were companytroverted.
P. Maheshwari and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellant.
681 of 1966.
The tenant challenged the same on the ground that the permission granted by the Additional District Magistrate was invalid as the District Magistrate mentioned in s. 3 of the aforesaid Act was persona designate.
The requisitioning order was challenged by means of a writ petition on two grounds the first was that it had been made mala fide and the second was that the numberification which had been issued under s. 40 1 of the Act by the Central Government empowering among others the District Magistrate to exercise powers which were exercisable by the Central Government under s. 29 in addition to other sections which it is unnecessary to mention was illegal and invalid.
2 herein issued a requisitioning order purporting to be under s. 29 of the Act requisitioning the shop in question and directing the tenant to surrender and deliver possession thereof to the Manager, Cooperative Consumer Store, Batala, within two days of the service of the order.
