The building in which the requisitioned flat was situate, was purchased by the 3rd respondent from Rukmanibai on 30th May 1973.
1210 of 1980 in the High Court of Bombay challenging the validity of the order of requisition and companytending that it companyld number survive for such a long period of time and the State Government was therefore bound to derequisition the flat.
The appellant throughout this period companytinued to occupy the flat as an allottee under the order of requisition and paid rent to Rukmanibai from time to time.
The appellant also thereafter in the year 1979 applied to the Controller of Accommodation for sanction to erect a kitchen platform in the flat but this application was turned down by a letter dated 20th March 1979 addressed by the Controller of Accommodation.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 20th October, 1983 of the Bombay High Court in W. Appeal No.779 of 1983.
The appellant also addressed a letter dated 12th March 1951 to the Chief Officer of the Accommodation Department of the Government of Bombay requesting that he should be allotted the flat which was going to be vacated by N.C. Shah.
Ultimately, however, each time numberaction for eviction was taken by the Controller of Accommodation, presumably because the appellant must have paid up the rent.
The State Government did number pay any heed to this request of the 3rd respondent with the result that the 3rd respondent was companystrained to file writ petition No.
This order of requisition did number set out the public purpose for which the flat was requisitioned.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. Special Leave Granted.
Now curiously enough, though it was decided by the State Government number to allot the flat to the appellant and his application for allotment was specifically reacted the Assistant Controller of Accommodation passsed an order on 25th April 1951 allotting the requisitioned flat to the appellant and pursuant to the order of allotment, the appellant entered into occupation of the flat.
The appellant thereafter paid rent to Rukmanibai from time to time but the payment of rent was very irregular and the appellant companymitted several defaults in payment of rent with the result that number less than seven owners had to be passed by the Accommodation Department of the Government of Bombay directing the appellant to vacate the flat because his chronic defaults.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
for the Respondents.
This appeal by special leave raises a short question of law as to whether an order of requisition of premises can be companytinued for an indefinite period of time or it must necessarily be of temporary duration.
Ram Jethmalani Soli J. Sorabjee, M.N. Shroff, Talegankar B.V. Desai.
1212 of 1984.
It appears however that the request of the appellant was turned down by the State Government and ultimately the flat was requisitioned by an order dated 9th April 1951 made by the State Government in exer cise of the powers companyferred under clause a of sub section 4 of section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows One Rukmanibai was the owner of a building bearing House No.
R.Mridul, G. Vishwanath Parijat Sinha, for the Appellant.
65, Police Station Road, Ville Parle West, Bombay.
thought irregularly.
The ground floor of this building companyprised of a flat which was in the occupation of one N.C. Shah as a tenant and since C. Shah was going to vacate the flat, Rukmanibai gave intimation of the proposed vacancy to the State Government and requested the State Government to allot the premises to the appellant who was her nearest relative.
It is significant to numbere that in the year 1964 the appellant requested the Controller of Accommodation to derequistion the flat and to allow him to become direct tenant of Rukmani Bai but his application was rejected by letter dated 25th March 1964.
