147 of 1952, requisitioning the premises of the three respondents.
145 and 146 of 1952 and under section 5 1 in Civil Appeal No.
The uncle, who is the first respondent, is the tenant.
The facts are these.
Civil Appeals Nos.
Later, sections 5 and 6 were amended by Bombay Act XXXIX of 1950.
The Act of 1948 would have expired in April, 1950, but its life was extended by Bombay Act II of 1950.
In Civil Appeal No.
The writs have been granted and the State of Bombay appeals.
The State of Bombay companytends that he is a tenant but that is numberlonger of companysequence because of the assurance given by the learned Attorney General that the possession of the petitioners in this case will number be disturbed for any reason arising out of these proceedings.
In Civil Appeal No.
In Civil Appeal No.
145 of 1952 the respondents are uncle and nephew.
146 of 1952 the premises are owned by a trust.
147 of 1952 there is only one respondent, a private limited companypany which occupies the requisitioned premises as a tenant for the purposes of its business.
The first and second respondents are the trustees and the third respondents claims to be a licensee living on the premises.
The respondents are either the owners or the tenants of the premises requisitioned.
They arise out of three petitions made in the Bombay High Court for writs of mandamus under article 266 of the Constitution.
Civil Appeal No.
The second respondent in his nephew.
He and his family live with the first respondent in the requisitioned premises.
The Governor of Bombay, acting through the Assistant Controller of Accommodation, issued orders under section 6 4 a of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, in Civil Appeals Nos.
Bose, J. This judgment will govern Civil Appeals Nos.
