Case: Kantendra Jaymukhlal Majumdar Vs. Collector of Baroda &amp; Another

2. The premises in suit were requisitioned for the appellant in December 1953 when he was an Assistant Registrar of the Baroda University. He left the service at Baroda in December 1957 and was serving at Gorakpur when the impugned order asking him to vacate the premises was made on February 23, 19623. To appreciate the contentions raised for the appellant, we may set out some further facts. There had been litigation between respondent No. 2 and the appellant in 1958 on the basis that the appellant was the tenant of respondent No. 2. The suit for ejecting the appellant from the premises was instituted on the ground that respondent No. 2 required the premises bona fide for personal occupation. It was ultimately dismissed on the ground that the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act; 1947 (Bom. Act LVII of 1947) did not apply to the premises requisitioned by Government in view of S. 4 of that Act.

Reasoning:
12. In view of S. 9 of the Act, it was the duty of the Collector, onderequisitioningthe premises, to restore them to the landlord in the condition in which he had taken in possession. He took vacant possession from the landlord and therefore had to deliver vacant possession to him.n (3) and 7. of S. 9 specially provide for specifying in the order of, the person to whom possession of the land be given and such person can be the person from whom possession had been obtained by Government or some officer of Government specified therefor. It was, therefore, essential for the Collector to order by his order ofderequisitioningthe premises the vacation of the premises by the appellant and the delivery of possession to respondent No. 2 to whom the Government had to restore possession in order to relieve itself of any further claims to compensation. The contention that the Collector was incompetent to make such an order is not sound13. It was not for the collector to consider whether there was any private arrangement between the appellant and the landlord with respect to the tenancy of the premises after the, and it is rightly conceded that the Collector would not be bound by any such arrangement. Nor can the question of any such arrangement between the two be a matter for decision by the High Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. There is a different forum for the determination of the rights of the two parties, if any14. It was sought to be urged for the appellant that the expression to requisition in S. 4 applies to the taking of possession of land and does not apply to the taking of possession of premises, which, according to the appellant, are not included in the term land as defined in. (1). It is argued on this basis that the requisition of the premises in suit was not under the Act. No. such question was raised before the High Court and we did not allow learned counsel for the appellant to raise this question in this Court.