GYAN CHAND JAIN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALWAR
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
GYAN CHAND JAIN
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALWAR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The petitioner who is a landlord has challenged the order of the District Magistrate, Alwar dt. May 12, 1976 by which he has ordered the delivery of possession of a Godown, boundaries of which have been given in para 2 of the writ petition to respondent 3 a tenant.
(2.)Respondent 3, Shri Raj Kumar Kherawat, took on lease the Godown from the petitioner on Nov. 29 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. Though initially it was taken only for a period of 11 months under a rent note Ex. 1 but it continued to be with him even thereafter. On May 12. 1976 the petitioner had received a notice from respondent 1 purported to be under S.23 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Act, 1971 and R.154 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 requisitioning the aforesaid premises. When the petitioner received the notice from respondent 1 on May 12, 1976, on the same day he served a notice on respondent 3 through Shri Prakash Chand Jain Advocate desiring him to vacate the premises within 12 hours as the same had been requisitioned by the District Magistrate, Alwar under D.I.R. This notice also threatened respondent 3 of the consequences of not vacating the premises. Respondent 3 as a law abiding citizen handed over the possession of the property on the same day to Jai Kumar Jain, nephew and an authorised agent of the petitioner, who in turn handed over the Godown to the Manager, Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, Alwar and thus the Godown went in possession of the Corporation on the day it was requisitioned.
(3.)The answering respondent realising that the landlord in the garb of requisition under the provisions of D.I.R. may not permanently deprive him of the tenancy and consequently the possession of Godown, sent a telegram through his counsel Shri Babu Lal Goyal on May 13, 1976, a copy of this telegram is Annexure 5 wherein the respondent intimated that he being a statutory tenant his tenancy which still exists would revive automatically whenever the Godown is vacated by the State. A similar application was submitted by the petitioner through his counsel to the District Magistrate on May 15, 1976. On May 18, 1976 the District Supply Officer issued a notice to Shri Jai Kumar Jain and Shri Fateh Singh, Manager of the warehouse, and respondent 3 to appear before him on May 19, 1976. The statements of Fateh Singh and Jai Kumar Jain were recorded and the District Magistrate vide his order dt. May 19. 1976 directed that the requisitioned Godown having been taken over from Shri Raj Kumar the same shall be restored to him upon de-requisition and the rent payable during the requisition period shall also be paid to Shri Raj Kumar. He, however, passed the order without prejudice to the rights, liabilities and interest of the parties as landlord and tenant. It is against this order that present writ petition has been filed by the landlord.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.