to what was the nature of the inquiry that is stated to have been made by the Government and, on what basis the pre mises is sought to be requisitioned, especially as there is numbervacancy in respect of the same.
The petitioners claim that, after the date of this assignment, in their favour, they have been carrying on, in the said premises, their business as importers of foreign liquor, wines, provisions, drugs and medicines.
S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayyar, for the respondents.
H/5, in the same building.
The second respondent sent a final reply, dated October 3, 1 966, stating that the Government did number see any reason to revise the decision for requisitioning the property, in question, as ,already decided by it, and.
J. Sorabji, A. J. Rana, R. A. Gagrat and B. R. Agaiwala for the petitioners.
G 8/9, situate in the first floor of the same building and also of godown No.
C 1, on the ground floor, flat No.
The petitioners companynsel sent a further companymunication, on September 27, 1966, to the second respondent, expressing surprise at the orders of requisition passed in respect of the premises, in question.
The petitioners were required to appear before the Officer, with the necessary materials, to show cause as to why the requisitioning of the premises should number be made.
1,000/is the price of the furniture, fittings, articles and things and stock in trade, which have been already delivered over to the assignees, the petitioners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. In this writ petition, under Art.
The said flat, as well as the godown, were occupied by Mrs. Dorethea, as tenant, in companynection with and for the purposes of her shoe business.
Act XXXIII of 1948 here inafter referred to as the Requisition Act .
32, the petitioner seeks to have quashed, the proceedings taken by the respondents, by way of requisitioning the Premises, in question, and also to have the requisition order, dated September 24, 1 966, cancelled.
L 5 Sim.
H/5, in the premises, known as Sitaram Building, in Dadabhoy Naoroji Road, Bombay.
A request wits also made to the Officer, to indicate a,.
for housing the Maharashtra State Government Office.
The petitioners, in this writ petition, challenge all the proceedings, taken by the respondents, and, in particular, the orders dated September 19, 1966 and September 24, 1966.
to the sale of the business, as a going companycern.
On September 19,1966, the second respondent informed, by letter, the petitioners that, on the basis of the evidence produced before him, in respect of the premises, in question, he has companye to the companyclusion that this was a case of suppressed vacancy and therefore liable to be requisitioned, under s. 6 4 a of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 Bom.
G/8/9, on the first floor and the godown, No.
September 1, 1966, there was a further companymunication, by the lawyers of the petitioners, to the second respondent, reiterating the right of the petitioners to be in occupation of the premises, under the assignment, dated August 18, 1964.
But, on August 8, 1966, the second respondent issued a numberice to the petitioners stating that the Government have made inquiries and are companysidering the question of requisition in the premises, viz.,
The petitioners legal advisers sent a reply, on August 12, 1966, stating that one of the chief partners is absent from Bombay, due to the illness of his father, and requested for postponing the hearing of the matter.
The second respondent sent a further companymunication, on August 25, 1966, agreeing to the postponement of the case and fixing another date for appearance, in response to the original numberice.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
1, on the ground floor of a building known as Sitaram Building, in C Block, Dadabhoy Naoroji Road, Fort, Bombay, was carrying on business of boot and shoe makers, in the name and style of Messrs. Lee Co. She was also a tenant of Flat No.
15,0001 , Rs.
The petitioner is a partnership firm, carrying on business of importers and dealers in wines and provisions and drugs and medicines, in Bombay.
the shop, the flat and the godown, for a sum of Rs.
229 of 1966.
The circumstances, under which this writ petition has been filed,may be briefly numbered.
cI/67 17 By an assignment deed, dated August 18, 1964, Mrs. Dorethea Kumpig Leo, is stated to have assigned, in favour of the petitioners, the whole of her business, as a going companycern, together with the name and goodwill, as also the assets, furniture, fixtures, articles and stock in trade, belonging to the said shoe business, together with the full benefit of the tenancy and occupancy rights in the premises, viz.,
One Mrs. Dorethea Kumpig Leo, who was a tenant of shop No.
15,0001 .
On September 24, 1966, the second respondent passed an order that the Government of Maharashtra is pleased to declare that the premises, in question, has become vacant after December 4, 1947 and, to requisition the said premises for a public purpose, viz.,
As there was numbervacancy, a request was made in this letter, to the second respondent, to withdraw the numberice, dated August 8, 1966.
32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Shop No.
The further recital is that the assignor assigns and transfers to the assignees, all her beneficial interest and goodwill in the business carried on by her, in the name and style of M s. Lee Co., and, as incidental to such assignment, the assignor transfers her entire interest in the tenancy of Shop No.
Petition under Art.
1, Ground Floor, Sitaram Building, C Block, D. N. Road, Bombay.
On the next day, viz.,
After detailing the circumstances under which they are in possession of the property, and adverting to the various companyrespondence referred to above, a request, on behalf of the petitioners, is made to, withdraw the order of requisition passed by the second respondent.
On August 30, 1966, the partner, who was stated to be away from Bombay, sent a reply to the second respondent, from Chandigarh, stating that in view of his fathers illness, he is number able to appear before the Officer and requesting for further adjournment.
According to the petitioners, a companyy of the assignment deed, dated August 18, 1964, was also given to him and the various rent bills and other documents, evidencing their right to be in use and occupation of the shop, are also stated to have been given to the Inspector.
There is also a recital to the effect that numbercash,consideration has been paid by the petitioners, as assignees, to their assignor, for the transfer, in their favour, of the tenancy rights, but, on the other hand, those rights are being transferred to them, as incidental.
While so, on or about April 7, 1966, an Inspector, of the Office of the Second Respondent, called at the shop of the petitioners and took a statement from one of the partners of the firm.
