Patna High Court
Ramji Valji And Ors. vs J.N. Singh And Ors. on 4 September, 1956
Equivalent citations: 1957(5)BLJR145, AIR 1957 PATNA 637
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
ORDER
1. In M. J. C. 126 of 1955 the case of the petitioner is that holding No. 877, Z, Ward No. 2B, commonly known as Parmar Bhaban or Parmar House, was requisitioned by the Military authorities under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules through the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi. The date of requisition is the 6th January, 1943. More than twelve years later, that is, on the 27th January, 1955, the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi informed the petitioner that the house would be derequisitioned and released from the 31st January, 1955. The petitioner gave a certificate that he received back possession of the house from the Military authorities and that he had no claims against the Government of India except in So far as any arrears of rent had accrued.
The order of requisition is Annexure 'A' of the application and the order of de-requisition is Annexure 'C'. The certificate of discharge given by the petitioner is Annexure 'C/l'. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that on the 14th February, l955, the House Controller of Ranchi made an order allotting the house to Mr. K.B. Srivastava, a Magistrate employed by the Government at Ranchi. This order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the House Controller had no authority to make allotment under the proviso to Section 11 (1) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. (Eihar Act III of 1947), or under any other statutory provision.
2. The submission made by Mr. B.C. Ghosh on behalf of the petitioner is that the proviso to Section 11 (1) of Bihar Act III of 1947 has no application and the House Controller had no authority to make the order of allotment on the 14th February, 1955, The argument of the learned Counsel is based on the proviso to Section 11 (1) of the Act which is in the following terms :
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or law to the contrary and subject to the provisions of Section 12, where a tenant is in possession of any building, he shall not be liable to be evicted therefrom, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except--
(a) in the case of a month to month tenant, for non-payment of rent or breach of the conditions of the tenancy, or for sub-letting the building or any portion thereof without the consent of the landlord, or if he is an employee of the landlord occupying the building as an employee, on his ceasing to be in such employment; and
(b) In the case of any other tenant, on the... expiry of the period of the tenancy, or for nonpayment of rent, or for breach of the conditions of the tenancy :
Provided that where a servant of the Government in possession of any building as a tenant vacates such building, he shall within twenty-four hours of such vacation submit a report about such vacation to the District Magistrate who shall, Within a period of fifteen days from the date of the vacation, either allot the building to any other servant of the Government whom the District Magistrate thinks suitable, subject to the payment of rent, and the observance of the conditions of the tenancy by such servant of the Government, or direct that the landlord shall be put in possession of the building."
It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the Military authorities were not in possession of the building in the status of tenant and so the proviso had no application. The argument was that there was a requisition of the house by the Military authorities acting under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules read with Ordinance No. 19 of 1943, which continued the emergency powers in relation to the requisition of land. In our opinion the submission of the learned Counsel is well-founded. Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules made provision for requisitioning of movable and immovable property by the Government in certain circumstances. Rule 75A(1) states:
"If in the opinion of the Central Government or the Provincial Government it is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the defence of British India, public safety, the maintenance of public order or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, that Government may by order in writing requisition any property, move-able or immoveable, and may make such further orders as appear to that Government to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning ;
Provided that no property used for the purpose of religious worship and no such property as is referred to in Rule 66 or in Rule 72 shall be requisitioned under this rule".
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 75A states-:
"Where the Central Government or the Provincial Government has requisitioned any property under Sub-rule (1), that Government may use or deal with the property in such manner as may appear to it to be expedient, and may acquire it by serving on the owner thereof, or where the owner is not readily traceable or the ownership is in dispute, by publishing in the official gazette, a notice stating that the Central or Provincial Government, as the case may be, has decided to acquire it in pursuance of this rule".
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 75A is also important in this connection. It reads as follows:
"Where a notice of requisition is served on the owner of the property or published in the official gazette under Sub-rule (2) then at the beginning of the day on which the notice is so served or published, the property shall vest in Government free from any mortgage, pledge, lien or other similar encumbrance, and the period of the requisition thereof shall end."
The effect of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 75A is that as soon as a notice of requisition is served on the owner of the property or published in the official gazette, then the property vests in the Government, free from any mortgage, pledge, lien or other similar encumbrance. In other words, title to the property vests in the Government as soon as the order of requisition is made and it is not, therefore, right to speak of the Government as the tenant of the premises. It follows that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the owner of the requisitioned premises and the Governmental authorities and, therefore, the proviso to Section 11 (1) of Bihar Act III of 1947 has no application in the present case. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the House Controller had no authority to make the order of allotment on the 14th February, 1955, under the proviso to Section 11 (1) of Bihar Act HI of 1947.
3. This legal position was admitted by the learned Government Pleader for the State of Bihar and it was conceded by him that the House Controller of Ranchi had no authority to allot the house of the petitioner under the proviso to Section 11 (1) of Bihar Act III of 1947.
4. We, therefore, allow the application in M. J. C. No. 126 of 1955 and direct that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the order of the House Controller dated 14th February, 1955.
5. In M. J. C. Nos. 166 and 233 of 1955 the material facts are similar in character. In M. J, C. 166 of 1955 the impugned order of the House Controller is dated llth February, 1955, and in M. J. C; No. 233 of 1955 the date of the orders of the House Controller making the allotment is 4th of February, 1955, and 24th of March, 1955. For the reasons we have already given we hold that all these orders also have been made by the House Controller without jurisdiction and they must be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari.
6. We accordingly allow all the applications.
There will be no order as to costs.