Bhagwati, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 117 of 1952 raises a short point as to the construction of Cl. 3 of the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance, 1946.
(2.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was commenced by the first respondent against the appellants and the second respondent for delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the three shops situated on the ground floor of the premises known as "Irani Manzil". The first respondent was the owner of the said immovable property which had been requisitioned on 15-4-1942 by the Collector of Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by R. 75-A (1)of the Defence of India Rules read with the Notification of the Government, Defence Co-ordination Department, No. 1336/OR/1/42 dates 15-4-1942. The order of requisition was in the following terms: "Order No. M. S. C. 467/H-Whereas it is necessary for securing the public safety and the efficient prosecution of the war to requisition the property specified in the schedule hereto appended .......... I. M. A. Faruqui, the collector of Bombay, do hereby requisition the said property and direct that possession of the said property be delivered forthwith to the Food Controller, Bombay, subject to the following conditions: 1. The property shall be continued in requisition during the period of the present war and six months thereafter or for such shorter period as may be specified by the Food Controller. Bombay...... " The said premises were used for the purpose of housing the Government Grain Shop No. 176.
(3.) By a letter dated 30-7-1946/17-8-1946 the Controller of Government Grain Shops, Bombay wrote to the first respondent that as the validity of the requisitioning order was to expire on 30-9-1946, the first respondent should allow the Department to remain as her tenants in respect of the premises. The first respondent replied by her Advocate's letter dated 27- 8-1946 offering the tenancy to the Department on certain terms. These terms were not accepted but the occupation of the premises continued even after 30-9-1946 and the first respondent complained about such occupation after the period of requisition of the said shops had come to an end and also complained that it was contemplated to transfer the said shops to a private party or concern without any reference to her in the matter. By her Advocate's letter dated 29-8-1947 she gave to the Collector of Bombay a notice to vacate the said shops giving him two clear calendar months' time and asking him to deliver over to her peaceful and vacant possession of the said shops. The Controller of Government Grain Shops, Bombay, wrote to the first respondent on 1-10-1947 that the second respondent was being handed over the Government Grain Shop No. 176 and that she should give her consent to the electric connection to be carried out in the said shops by the second respondent. The first respondent refused to give her consent and protested against the contemplated action. The Collector of Bombay by his letter dated 15-1-1948 intimated to the first respondent that the requisitioning of the said shops was continued after 30-9-1946 by Act 17 of 1947 and as possession of the said shops had been handed over to the second respondent vacant possession of the same could not be given to the first respondent. Further correspondence ensued between the first respondent's attorneys and the Collector of Bombay in the course of which the Collector of Bombay admitted that the said shops had been sublet to the second respondent but contended that the maintenance of essential supplies was the purpose for which the premises in question were requisitioned and that as the second respondent continued to serve the same purpose the first respondent was not entitled to peaceful and vacant possession of the premises. The first respondent therefore filed a suit on the original side of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay being Suit. N. 235 of 1949 claiming vacant and peaceful possession of the premises as also compensation for wrongful use and occupation thereof till delivery of possession was given over to her.;