Case: Chimandas Bagomal Sindhi Vs. Jogeshwar And Another

Jogeshwar s/o Parmanand Bhishikar (hereinafter called the respondent) owns a house known as the Bhishikar Bhawan in Nagpur. Block No. 2A had been let out by him to a firm known as the Dayalbagh Stores for carrying on business. Since the tenant was in arrears as to rent, the respondent obtained from the Rent Control authorities permission to terminate the said tenancy. Meanwhile, the tenant intimated to the respondent by telegram on July 24, 1955 that it had vacated the said premises on that day. Prior to the receipt of this telegram. However, the appellant Chimandas Bagomal Sindhi had made an application to the Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Nagpur, on July 15, 1955, that the premises occupied by the said tenant were likely to fall vacant, and prayed that the same should be allotted to him as he was a displaced person within the meaning of the Order. The Addl. D.C. passed an Order of provisional allotment in favour of the appellant on the same day and since then, the appellant has been in possession of the said premises2. The respondent them came to know about the said provisional allotment and gave intimation to the Addl. D. C. that he needed the premises for his own purposes, and so, he moved for the cancellation of the said provisional allotment Order. On July 23, 1956, the Addl. D. C. purporting to exercise his powers under Cl. 23(1) of the Order confirmed the provisional allotment in favour of the appellant3. The respondent then moved the Nagpur High Court by a writ petition No. 307 of 1955 for cancellation of the said Order. On April 10, 1956, Mr. Justice Bhutt set aside the Order of allotment and remanded the case for disposal in accordance with law. That is how the first stage of this dispute came to an end4. On remand, the Add. Dy. Commissioner confirmed the earlier Order. He held that the respondent did not need the premises for his own occupation and he thought that there was no going back on the earlier provisional Order of allotment in favour of the appellant. This second Order was challenged by the respondent by another writ petition filed in the Nagpur High Court (No. 391 of 1956). Meanwhile, the appellant had filed a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 95 of 1956) against the decision of Bhutt J. on the earlier writ petition filed by the respondent. By consent, the said Letters Patent Appeal and the subsequent writ petition filed by the respondent were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench has set aside the Order of allotment passed in favour of the appellant and allowed the subsequent writ petition filed by the respondent. It is against this Order that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave5. It appears that after remand, the respondent brought it to the notice of the Addl. D. C. that the appellant owned As. -/4/- share in the Hind Vastra Bhandar and that he had, therefore, a place where he could carry on his business. This allegation was repeated by the respondent in his second writ petition and it was urged by him that in view of the fact that the appellant had a place of business of his own, he was not entitled to the accommodation allotted to him by the impugned Order. This plea was met by the appellant on the ground that the business mentioned by the respondent had been dissolved. From the affidavit filed by the appellant in that behalf it does appear that the appellant had a share in the Hind Vastra Bhandar and Krishna Watch Co., both of which partnership carried on their business at Nagpur but on April 8, l957 the said partnerships had been dissolved and so, after the said date of dissolution there was no place of business to which the appellant could lay any claim. In support of this plea, the appellant has filed the deed of Dissolution in question6. The High Court has held that reading the definition of the words displaced person prescribed by c. 2(2) together with the relevant clause of the Order under which the impugned allotment had been made in favour of the appellant, it must be held that the appellant was not a displaced person and as such he was not entitled to the said allotment.

Reasoning:
14. It may be conceded that prima facie facie the view taken by the High Court appears to be attractive. It does appear to be reasonable that provisions of the kind contained in Chapter III would normally be excepted to assist persons of specified categories to obtain accommodation and that would impliedly postulate that such person have no accommodation which they can claim their own. If the words of the relevant provision are ambiguous, or if their effect can reasonably be said to be a matter of doubt, it may be permissible to construe the said provisions in the light of the assumption made by the High Court. But, are the words of the relevant provision in any sense ambiguous, or is the effect of those words doubtful. In our opinion, the answer to these questions must be in the negative15. Clause 23 (1) refers to the person in the specified categories, and empowers the D.C. to make an Order of allotment in their favour. There are no terms of limitation qualifying the said person, and the scheme of the relevant provisions does not seem to contemplate any such limitation. It is significant that the said person are not entitled as a matter of right to an Order of allotment. What cl. 23(1) does is to confer power on the D.C. to make an Order of allotment if he thought is expedient, just or fair to do so in a particular case, it is only where an Order is made by the D.C. that obligation is imposed on the landlord to let the premises to the person anemd in the Order. Having regard to the words used in describing the persons and the categories, it seems plain that the provision contemplated that a person belonging to one of those categories may be entitled to claim its benefit on he ground that accommodation already available to him was patently insufficient or unsuitable. When such a plea is made, the D,C, may have to examine the contentions raised by the landlord against such a plea as well as the claim that the landlord may make for his own personal occupation. The enquiry which would thus become necessary would be in the nature of a quasi-judicial enquiry and the power conferred on the D.C. may have to be exercised in a fair and just manner. We do not think that c. 23(1) as well as cls. 24 and 24A necessarily exclude the cases of person specified in them on the ground that the said person already have an accommodation which they can call their own. Persons their specified would no doubt have a much better claim for accommodation it if is shown that they have no accommodation at all. But even if such persons have accommodation, their claims cannot be rules out on the preliminary ground that the very fact that they have accommodation takes them out of the provisions of the respective clauses. It is quite true that if a person belonging to the specified categories has suitable and sufficient accommodation, he would normally not be entitled to claim the benefit of cl. 23(1). That, however, is a matter to he considered by the Dy. Commissioner on the merits. We, are therefore, satisfied that the High Court was in error in assuming that the provisions of cl. 23(1) and cls. 24 and 24A impliedly postulate that the persons belonging to the respective categories specified by them can receive allotment only if they have no previous accommodation of their own. That being so, we must hold that the appellants case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that he had other accommodation by virtue of the fact that he was a partner in two concerns to which we have already referred16. This conclusion cannot, however, finally dispose of the appeal before us because it seems to us that after the remand Order was passed by Mr. Justice Bhutt, the addl. D.C. has not dealt with the matter in accordance with law as he was required to do. He appears to have taken the view that since a a provisional Order had already been passed, there was "no going back", upon it. He thought that after remand, the scope of the enquiry was confined to the examination of the question as to whether the respondent proved that he needed the premises for his own occupation. It is true that he has incidentally mentioned the fact that the appellant owned a -/4/- share in the business which was carried on in Nagpur, but he has added that the said fact does not preclude him from obtaining a shop for starting a business exclusively of his own. This observation shows that the Addl. D.C. did not properly appreciate the scope, and effect of the provision contained in the relevant clause. Besides, reading the Order as a whole, it is quite clear that he took an unduly narrow view of the limits of the enquiry which he was bound tot hold as a result of the remand Order and that has vitiated his final conclusion. We, therefore think that it is necessary that the matter should be sent back to the Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Nagpur, with a direction that he should consider the case on the merits afresh. We wish to make it clear that the question as to whether the appellant should be given allotment of the premises in question should be determined by the Add. D.C. in the light of the position as it stood on July 15, 1955. We are making this observation because there has been some controversy before us as to whether the appellant has lost his right in the premises belonging to the partnership is alleged to have been dissolved on April 8, 1957. This learned Attorney-General has contended that if the matter has to go back, the Addl. C.D. should be free to confide the subsequent events that have taken place, and the appellant?s case should, therefore, be dealt with on the basis that he has no longer any shares in the said partnership. We are not inclined to accept this contention. The fact that the present proceedings have been protracted would not entitle the appellant to ask the Addl. D.C. to take subsequent events into account. It is clear that the dissolution of the partnership took place long after the appellant obtain the provisional allotment from the Add. D.C. and it is by no means clear that if the Addl D.C. had been then told that the appellant had a place of business Or his own, he would have granted accommodation to him in the present premises on the same day that he moved him in that behalf. We are satisfied that the question about the propriety and validity of the said provisional Order must be judged in the light of the facts as they obtained on that day.