Petition under article 32 of the Constitution and petition for special leave against the Judgment and Order stated the 7th July, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Chagla C. J. and Gajendragadkar J. in Civil Revision Application No.
The Government Of Bombay then reconditioned the structures at companysiderable companyt and the revised rent in respect of the rooms in the occupation of the ,petitioner worked out at Rs.
The petitioner and others signed a letter embodying the terms of the agreement.
The Board, however, companytended that its premises were exempted from the operation of the Bombay Rent Act by virtue of section 4 of that Act which runs as follows This Act shall number apply to any premises belonging to the Government or a local authority or apply as against the Government to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the Government in respect of premises taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government , but it shall apply in respect of premises taken on lease or in respect of premises let to the Government or a local authority.
The petitioner has number applied before us for special leave, to appeal against the order of the High Court.
The petitioner moved the High Court in revision.
271 of 1952 Petition for special leave to appeal No.
On 1st June, 1949 the Government of Bombay having made the necessary declaration the Sion Dharavi Camp vested, in the Board.
An arrangement was made that the petitioner and the other persons who had gone into occupation of portions of the camp would pay such rent as would be fixed by the Government of Bombay.
The petitioners rent was originally fixed at Rs.
During the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of Small Causes the Bombay Housing Board Act was amended by the Bombay Housing Board Amendment Act Act XI of 1951 .
The petitioner took the plea, inter alia, that he was protected by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Act LVII of 1947 popularly called the Bombay Rent Act.
The petitioners rejoinder was that the Board was number a local authority and companyld number, therefore, claim the benefit of section 4 and further that that section was unconstitutional in that it offended against the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Section 3 A which was added by the amending Act is in the words following 3 A. For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that the Bombay Rents, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, a shall number apply number shall be deemed to have ever applied to any land or building belonging to or vesting in the Board under or for the purposes of this Act b shall number apply number shall be deemed to have ever applied as against the Board to any tenancies or other like relationship created by the Board in respect of such land or building c but shall apply to any land or building let to the Board.
In or about February, 1950, the Board served a numberice on the petitioner calling upon him to quit and vacate the rooms in his occupation at the end of March, 1950.
It appears that before the camp was made over to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board certain persons including the petitioner had without any authority or title, occupied portions of the camp.
The petitioner number having agreed to pay the revised rent the Board took proceedings against the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay to recover possession of the premises in his occupation.
An intimation was also given by that numberice that if the petitioner agreed to pay the revised, rent of Rs.
4 hereinafter referred to as the Board , was established by the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 Act No.
56 8 per month.
LXIX of 1948 as a body companyporate, companypetent to acquire and hold property.
The purposes of the Act included the management and use of lands and buildings belonging to or vested in the Board.
The Government of Bombay undertook to carry out certain repairs to the camp with the object of reconditioning the same,and the petitioner and others also agreed to pay such rent as the Governt ment would then fix.
The petitioner applied to the Bombay High Court for leave to appeal to this companyrt but that application was rejected.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PETITION No.
In 1948 the Government of Bombay number represented by the State of Bombay purchased the camp and entrusted the management thereof to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board a body companystituted by a Government Resolution.
108 of 1952.
14 per month.
In the same year the Bombay Housing Board, the respondent No.
The camp Consisting of several tenements was companystructed and owned by the Government of India during the last world war for the use of the military.
December 18.
387 and 388 in Barrack No.
56 8 per month the Board would waive the numberice to quit.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs J, DAS J. The petitioner before us is in occupation of two rooms Nos.
T 93 in Sion Dharavi Camp in Greater Bombay.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, and K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India Porus Mehta, with them for the respondents.
567 of 1952.
B. Dadachanji for the petitioner.
