N. L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THE petitioner's father Late Audh Bihari was the owner of house bearing Municipal Number 72 Ward no. 1 Raja Bazar, Puranl Basti, Distt. Basti After the death of Sri Audh Bihari in 1950, his two sons the present petitioners inherited the property aforesaid and are the owners and landlords In the building In question, there &re two verandas measuring 36' x 10' and 46' x 13' towards west facing the main road. THEre are two rooms on the two corners of the front verandah On the rear of the two verandahs, there is a h*ll measuring 50' x 48' Towards the north of the two verandahs there are two rooms of 2i' x 15 and 12' x 10* On the first floor, there is a verandah and two rooms
(2.) TWO front verandahs and the hall were Set out by the petitioners for office of the Regional Food Controller, Gorakhpur about 24 years back. The office of the Dy. Regional Marketing Officer and Senior Marketing Inspector, Basti are house in the aforesaid verandah and hall. The petitioner had let out only two front verandahs of the hall only to the Regional Food Controller, Gorakhpur. The remaining portion of the entire building namely, corner rooms and the front verandah, two rooms towards north of the verandah, gallery on the front floor and also the first floor were used for residential purposes by the petitioner. Since the petitioner needed the accommodation In occupation of the Regional Food Controller on the ground that the family of the petitioners was growing and there were number of sons and daughters and children in the family which required additional accommodation for the petitioners. The petitioners served a notice dated 23-3-81 to the Regional Food Controller, Gorakhpur and also to the Dy. Regional Marketing Officer and Senior Marketing Inspector, Basti for vacating the premises in their occupation in possession of the Regional Food Controller for the personal use and occupation. The Regional Food Controller, Dy. Regional Marketing Officer and the Senior Marketing Inspector did not give any reply to the petitioner nor vacated the building. The District Magistrate, Basil by order dated 20 5-81 passed under section 3 of the U. P. Storage Requisition Act of 1955 (here-in-after referred to as U. P. Act no. 21 of 1955), served to the petitioner no. 2 Sri Mahadeo Prasad. It was stated in the order that the accommodation described in the schedule of the said order had been requisitioned under section 3 of the Act and the Dy. Regional Marketing Officer, Basti shall take possession of the said accommodation forthwith. It was also directed that the petitioner no. 2 may appear on 27th May 1981 before the District Magistrate for determination of amount of compensation under section 7 of the U. P. Act no. 21 of 1955. The petitioners submitted written objection before the District Magistrate, Basti on 27-5-81. It was pointed out that major portion of the accommodation was being used by the petitioner' family for residential purposes. It was pointed out that at the time the premises was let oat to the respondents, the size of the family was very small and now it had substantially increased. The premises was bonafidely required for residential purposes. For appreciating the provision of U. P. Storage Requisition Act, 1955, the provision of section 3 are quoted as under : "Power of Requisition : (1) If in the opinion of the (District Magistrate) it is necessary to requisition any storage accommodation for storing (foodgrains or other foodstuffs) he may, by order in writing requisition such storage accommodation and may further order that the possession there of shall be delivered to him within such time (not being less than three days from the date of service of the Order) as may be specified : Provided that no accommodation which Is bonafide used for residential purposes shall be requisitioned ( Provided further that no other accommodation which is not ordinarily used for storage shall be requisitioned without the prior sanction of the State Government which shall, before according sanction, give an opportunity of the owner and occupier if any, to be heard "
(3.) THE petitioners pleaded that the accommodation in question was a residential building which was being used for residential purposes by the petitioners' family members and the same could not be requisitioned under the provisions of the Act. It was also pointed out that since the petitioners' served with notice, for vacating the accommodation occupied by the Regional Food Controller and also Dy. Regional Marketing Officer and Senior Matketing Inspector, Basti, they instead of vacating the premises, got an order passed by the (District Magistrate The District Magistrate, Basti was pleased to cell for a report from the Naib Tahsildar who submitted a report dated 7-9-81. The report dated 7-9-81 was sketchy and incomplete, hence the District Magistrate directed the Naib Tahsildar to submit a fresh report on 19-12-81. The report of the Naib Tahsildar dated 15 2-82 shows that there were two verandahs and a plain hall which are In occupation of the Regional Food Controller, Gorakhpur. The two rooms of the two front verandahs are also two rooms facing the north of the verandah and gallery immediately behind it were being used as residential accommodation by the owners. It was stressed that the entire portion of the first floor was also being used by the petitioners for their residential purposes. The Naib Tahsildar did not submit any fresh report or map nor any copy of the report or map alleged to have been prepared by the Naib Tahsildar was served to the petitioner. The said report of the Naib Tahsildar appear to be exparte and Its contents were never conveyed or communicated to the petitioner.;