- (1.) This judgment will govern Civil Appeals Nos. 146 and 147 of 1952 (These seem to be appeals from AIR 1952 Bom 16 and AIR 1952 Bom 468 -Ed.) as well. We will first deal with the questions that are common to them all. They arise out of three petitions made in the Bombay High Court for writs of 'mandamus' under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writs have been granted and the State of Bombay appeals.
(2.) The facts are these. The Governor of Bombay, acting through the Assistant Controller of Accommodation, issued orders under Section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 in Civil Appeals Nos. 145 and 146 of 1952 and under Section 5(1) in Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1952, requisitioning the premises of the three respondents. The question is whether these orders are 'ultra vires'. They are attacked on a number of grounds the first of which goes to the root of the matter. It is contended that these two sections are 'ultra vires' Articles 19 (1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution.
(3.) The respondents are either the owners or the tenants of the premises requisitioned. In Civil Appeal No. 145 of 1952 the respondents are uncle and nephew. The uncle, who is the first respondent, is the tenant. The second respondent is his nephew. He and his family live with the first respondent in the requisitioned premises. In Civil Appeal No. 146 of 1952 the premises are owned by a trust. The first and second respondents are the trustees and the third respondent claims to be a licensee living on the premises. The State of Bombay contends that he is a tenant but that is no longer of consequence because of the assurance given by the learned Attorney-General that the possession of the petitioners in this case will not be disturbed for any reason arising out of these proceedings. In Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1952 there is only one respondent, a private limited company which occupies the requisitioned premises as a tenant for the purposes of its business.;