- (1.)Both these petitioner filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as the dispute involved in these petitions is inter-related. The facts giving rise to filling of these two petitions are as follows:---
(2.)Niranjana Mohanlal Kapadia, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2025 of 1983 is the owner of Chunilal Karsandas Building situated at 159/2, Cavel Cross Lane No. 6, Bombay 400 002. Room No. 3 in this building was requisitioned by Government of Bombay on August 31, 1957 in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 for a public purpose, that is , for housing a victim of house collapse. On September 4, 1957 the premises were allotted in favour of Shankar Balwant Salunkhe, the father of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3030 of 1989. The allottee S.B. Salunkhe expired on February 27, 1978 and thereafter the room continued in occupation of his son Popat. Landlord Kapadia filed Writ Petition No. 2025 of 1983 or August 30, 1983 and the reliefs sought are (a) directing the State Government to forthwith withdraw or cancel the requisition order, and (b) directing the State Government to deliver vacant, quiet and peaceful possession to the landlord. The petition was admitted on September 2, 1983.
(3.)During pendency of this petition, on October 17, 1988 the Competent Authority constituted under the Act, served show cause notice under section 8-C(2)(a) of the Act on Popat to show cause why he should not be evicted from the premises. In response to the notice Popat appeared before the Competent Authority and claimed that the room should be allotted in his favour. It was claimed that the original allottee was not a Government servant nor is Popat but the room was allotted for the benefit of the original allottee and the members of his family, which was incidentally a joint Hindu family. Popat claimed that the room was allotted to his father as the accommodation available with his father was a room in a chawl at Argyle Road, Bombay and the building was acquired by the Government for erecting the Carnac Receiving Station of Tata Power Company. Popat claimed that the requisitioned room was allotted to his father when his father was required to vacate the room in the building which was acquired for construction of Carnac Receiving Station. The Competent Authority and not accept the claim. The Competent Authority noticed that even in the past Popat had requested to pass a fresh order of allotment in his favour but the request was not granted and on the contrary Popat was intimated that he would be allowed to stay in the room as long as the landlord did not demand back possession. This instruction was issued to Popat on October 2, 1979, that is immediately after the death of the original allottee. The Competent Authority held that as the landlord has demanded back possession and has filed writ petition in the High Court it is not possible to pass fresh order of allotment in favour of Popat. The claim that requisitioned premises were allotted in lieu of acquisition of building for the construction of receiving station was turned down. The competent Authority also took into consideration the fact of the Stay order granted by the Supreme Court in respect of dispossession of allottees, who were Government servants and observed that neither the original allottee nor Popat were at any time in Government employment. The Competent Authority therefore in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 8-C of the Act directed Popat to vacate the room within 30 days from the date of service of the order.
Popat carried an appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted under the provisions of the Act. The appellate authority concurred with the finding of the Competent Authority and upheld the order directing Popat to vacate the requisitioned premises. The appeal was dismissed by order dated June 7, 1989.