Against the said judgment, the State of Maharashtra preferred Special Leave Petition No.
The prayer for restoration of possession of the premises in question has, however, been declined by the High Court.
The order of requisition has been set aside but respondent number3 companytinues to be in possession of the premises.
Apart from questioning the legality and validity of requisition, the appellant also sought restoration of possession of the premises in question.
Printing dispensed with.
In respect of the said prayer, the High Court has directed that the parties shall abide by the decision of this Court in Special Leave Petition No.
The appellant and respondent No.4 are the companyowners of the property.
The appellant challenged the order of requisition dated 17th April, 1958 in the writ petition filed by him in the High Court of Bombay.
The order dated 6th October reads as under Leave granted.
As a Govt.
By judgment dated 19th January, 1999, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court following the ratio of the case of Grahak Sanstha Manch has quashed the order of requisition dated 17th April, 1958.
The challenge to the legality and validity of the requisition was based upon the decision of this Court in Grahak Sanstha Manch Ors.
15788 of 1998 which has been granted and the dispossession stayed by this Court in terms of orders 6th October, 1998.
This amendment was declared unconstitutional by judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dated 27th July, 1998.
Has respondent number3 any right to companytinue with the possession of the premises despite the order of requisition having been set aside and respondent number3 having retired from service, is the question for companysideration before us.
Hearing expedited.
These were requisitioned premises, having been requisitioned under the order of requisition dated 17th April, 1958 under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.
He retired from Government service on 30th September, 1993.
Many of these premises have since been derequisitioned by the Government, as per Court orders or having regard to certain other circumstances.
servant, respondent number3 was allotted the premises in question.
K.SABHARWAL J. Leave granted.
Respondent No.3 was a State Government employee.
Under an ad interim order passed in that suit, on derequisition the property is to be restored to respondent number 4 and has to be kept by him by way of interim measure.
