After the death of his mother in 1974, the applicant companytinued in possession.
In the year 1988, the first respondent filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court being Writ Petition No.
The High Court directed the State Government to pass an order of de requisition and hand over possession of the premises in question to the petitioner on or before 30th August, 1996.
23 of 1996 which has been later enacted into an Amendment Act amending the provision of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1997 Bombay Rent Act, The Bombay land Requisition Act, 1948 and the Bombay Government Premises Eviction Act, 1955, creating the statutory relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and the first respondent owner of the premises companycerned herein, he should be discharged from the said undertaking.
The Court pointed out the distinction between acquisition and requisition and according directed the premises requisitioned long ago to be re requisitioned within a period of eight months.
While the said writ petition was pending, a companystitution Bench of this Court held in Grahak Sanstha Manch v. State of Maharashtra 1994 4 S.C.C. 192 that the power to requisition under the Bombay Land Requisition Act cannot be exercised so as to deprive the landlord of the possession of the premises indefinitely or for an inordinately long time.
J. This application has been filed by the petitioner in Special Leave petition C No.
The applicant is number a Government servant but was allotted the same, being a homeless person, under what is called the suppressed vacancy scheme.
the applicant says that in vie of the subsequent legislation, namely, the Maharashtra Ordinance No.
It was specified that the said six months will expire on 26th February, 1997.
The applicant was also directed to file the usual undertaking within four weeks which he did.
The writ petition filed by the first respondent was allowed by the Bombay High companyrt on 3rd July, 1996, following Grahak Sanstha Manch.
1881 of 1988 for a writ of mandamus directing the Government of Maharashtra to derequisition the said premises and to hand over the possession of the same to hm.
He says, he is entitled to companytinue in the premises as a statutory tenant.
16184 of 1996 which was dismissed by this Court while granting time till 26th February, 1997 to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to the landlord.
The premises in question, belonging to the first respondent, were allotted to the applicants mother in the year 1958 by the Government of Maharashtra under the Bombay land Requisition Act.
for the State J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered J U D G M E N T P. JEEVAN REDDY.
It is against the said decision that he applicant had filed the aforesaid special leave Petition C No.
16184 of 1996 which was dismissed at the admission stage on 26th August, 1996.
for the Respondent D.M. Nargolkar, Adv.
While dismissing the special leave petition, this Court had given six months time for the applicant to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession to the respondent landlord.
