of Judicature at Bombay being Suit No.
the Dominion of India, but was by the State Government.
235 of 1949 claiming vacant and peaceful possession of the premises as also companypensation for wrongful use and occupation thereof till delivery of possession was given over to her.
The appellants preferred an appeal against that decision and the Court of Appeal companyfirmed the decree passed by the trial.
235 of 1949 in the said High Court.
176 and that she should give her companysent to the electric companynection to be carried out in the said shops by the second respondent.
She further companytended that after August, 1947, the user of the property was number by the appropriate Government, viz.,
1 and 2 in the said suit and the second respondent was impleaded as the third defendant.
The appellants were impleaded as defendants Nos.
The suit was companytested by the appellants.
The second respondent did number file any written statement number did he companytest the suit.
M.S.C. 467/H Whereas it is necessary for securing the public safety and the efficient prosecution of the war to requisition the property specified in the schedule hereto appended 1, M.A. Faruqui, the Collector of Bombay, do hereby requisition the said property and direct that possession of the said property be delivered forthwith to the Food Controller, Bombay, subject to the following companyditions The property shall be companytinued in requisition during the period of the present war and six months thereafter, or for such shorter period as may be specified by the Food Controller, Bombay The said premises were used for the purpose of housing the Government Grain Shop No.
117 of 1952 arising out of Suit No.
These terms were number accepted but the occupation of the premises companytinued even after the 30th September, 1946, and the first respondent companyplained about such occupation after the period of requisition of the said shops had companye to anend and also companyplained that it was companytemplated to transfer the said shops to a private party or companycern without any reference to her in the matter.
The first respondent refused to giver her companysent and protested against the companytemplated action.
Appeal by Special Leave against the Judgment and Decree dated the 8th January, 1953, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.
The first respondent replied by her advocates letter dated the 27th August, 1946, offering the tenancy to the Department on certain terms.
The Controller of Government Grain Shops, Bombay, wrote to the first respondent on the 1st October, 1947, that the second respondent was being handed over the Government Grain Shop No.
The first respondent therefore filed a suit on the original side of the High Court.
A. Palkhivala and S. P. Varma for respondent No.
The appellants thereupon applied for and obtained special leave under article 136 of the Constitution.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Collector, of Bombay by his letter dated the 15th January, 1948, intimated to the first respondent that the requisitioning of the said shops was companytinued after the 30th September, 1946, by Act XVII of 1947 and as possession of the said shops had been handed over to the second respondent vacant possession of the same companyld number be given to the first respondent.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, and C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India, Porus A. Mehta, with them for the appellants.
It is companymon ground that the Defence of India Act, 1939 XXXV of 1939 , and the rules made thereunder were to expire on the 30th September, 1946.
By her advocates letter dated the 29th August, 1947, she gave to the Collector of Bombay a numberice to vacate the said shops giving him two clear calendar months time and asking him to deliver over to her peaceful and vacant possession of the said shops.
She next companytended that the order was made for a specific purpose and as that purpose numberlonger obtained the order was numberlonger operative.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. BHAGWATI J. This appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.
She also companytended that the requisitioning order had ceased to be operative by reason of Act IX of 1951.
The suit out of which this appeal arises was companymenced by the first respondent against the appellants and the second respondent for delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the three shops situated on the ground floor of the premises known as Irani Manzil.
The first respondent companytended that, the requisitioning order had expired, that the property was numberlonger under requisition and therefore the possession by the Government was wrongful.
The order of requisition was in the following terms Order No.
Land Continuance of Powers Ordinance, 1946.
The appellants number being satisfied with that judgment applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, but the High Court rejected that application.
Various immoveable properties had been requisitioned in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub rule I of rule 75A of Defence of India Rules and all these requisitioning orders would have companye to an end and the immoveable properties released from requisition on the, expiration of the Defence of India Act and the rules made thereunder.
1336/OR/1/42 dated the 15th April, 1942.
154 of 1953.
The trial Judge, Mr. Justice Coyajee, upheld all these companytentions of the first respondent and decreed the suit.
May 14.
The first respondent was the owner of the said immovable property which had been requisitioned on the 15th April, 1943, by the Collector of Bombay in exercise of the powers companyferred upon him by, rule 75 A 1 of the Defence of India Rules read with the Notification of the Government, Defence Co ordination Department, No.
117 of 1952 raises a short point as to the companystruction of clause 3 of the Requisitioned.
By a letter dated the 30th July, 1946/17th August, 1946, the Controller of Government Grain Shops, Bombay, wrote to the first respondent that as the validity, of the requisitioning order was to expire on the 30th September, 1946, the first respondent should allow the Department to remain as her tenants in respect of the premises.
Further companyrespondence ensued between the first respondents attorneys and the Collector of Bombay in the companyrse of which the Collector of Bombay admitted that the said shops had been sublet to the second respondent but companytended that the maintenance of essential supplies was the purpose for which the premises in question were requisitioned and that as the second respondent companytinued to serve the same purpose the first respondent was number entitled to peaceful and vacant possession of the premises.
