- (1.) THE facts in this case are briefly as follows: The petitioner, Bipin Bihari Sadhukhan, is the owner of premises No. 1/a and 1/b, Hunger-ford Street, Calcutta. By a registered Indenture of Lease dated 26th July, 1937 the Governor of the Province of Bengal represented by the Manager, Murshidabad Estate became lessee in respect of the said premises for a period of 5 years from the 15th July, 1937. After the expiry of the said lease, the lessee held over upon a monthly tenancy. On or about the 5th of May, 1949 the premises was requisitioned and an order was made under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions)Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). On the 10th of May, 1949 the petitioner preferred objections against the said order of requisition. On the 20th June, 1949 the petitioner filed a petition before the Revenue Minister, Government of West Bengal, complaining against the acquisition and inter alia stated that the premises was being requisitioned for the interest and benefit of the Murshidabad Estate which did not constitute a 'public purpose', and in fact, the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad had got several houses in Calcutta. Thereupon, the petitioner was asked to interview the Secretary concerned, and on the 2nd September, 1949 the premises was derequisitioned. By mutual consent the petitioner let out the premises to the Manager of the Estate of the Nawab Bahadur, Murshidabad. It is stated in the petition that some time in 1957, the petitioner wanted to go and live in the house himself. The reason was that hehas been suffering for a long time from various forms of heart diseases namely, hypertension, coronary sclerosis and auricular fibrillation. As a matter of fact, he has annexed to the petition medical certificates from eminent physicians in Calcutta to that effect. He stated that the house where he was living, namely the premises No. 13, Surendra Nath Banerjee Road lies near the junction of Wellington Street and Surendra Nath Banerjee Road, which is a very congested area, and the house has no sufficient access to light and air and has no open space whatsoever. The petitioner's medical advisers have advised him to find accommodation in a less congested area inthe town, preferably a house with an open space. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has annexed a certificate from Dr. J. C. Banerjee, Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) of the Medical College, Calcutta, in which there is a specific recommendation that the petitioner should remove to a less congested and a more quiet locality. This house in Hungerford Street belonging to the petitioner answers his requirements. It is a house in a quiet locality with plenty of open space. It is stated that in view of these facts the petitioner, on or about the 22nd February, 1957 served a notice on the Manager, Murshidabad Estate, calling upon him to quit the premises by the last day of March, 1957 on the ground that the said premises was required for the petitioner's own use and occupation. Before the expiry of March, that is to say, on 28th March, 1957 an order was made for requisition of the said premises under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act. A copy of the order of requisition is set outin the annexure and marked with the letter "g". All that this order says is that in the opinion of the State Government the premises requisitioned were needed for a "public purpose". On the 3rd of April. 1957 an objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner a copy whereof is annexure "i" to the petition,in which all the above facts have been stated, together with the submission that the petitioner wanted to use the house for purposes of his health and that the requisition was not for any "public purpose". It was also pointed out in this petitioner that the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad has got several houses in Calcutta and Murshidabad. I find in this petition that mention was made for the first time of the eldest son of the Nawab Bahadur and it was stated that so far as he was concerned, he might reside in any of the houses of Nawab Bahadur. It appears that immediatelythereafter the petitioner was asked to interview the Assistant Secretary. On the 31st May, 1957 the petitioner replied that he was himself suffering from high blood pressure and other complications and mentioned that his son had already seen the Assistant Secretary and he had placed all the facts in his petition which he had sent inter alia to the Chief Minister of West Bengal. He requested an early release of the requisitioned premises. On the 29th August, 1957 the following letter was written by the Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, West Bengal, to the petitioner:-Subject:-Release of premises No 1/a and 1/b, Hungerford Street, Calcutta, from the requisition order. Sir, With reference to your letter dated 12th August, 1957 on the above subject I am directed to say that the premises will be released as soon as a suitable accommodation is found out for the sons of Nawab Bahadur. "
(2.) IT is from this letter that I find for the first time that the premises were being requisitioned for the "sons" of the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad. The petitioner thereafter waited for this promise to be fulfilled, but strangely enough, on the 9th October. 1958 received a notice, a copy whereof is annexure "l" to the petition. This notice, issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 4 of the said Act, called upon the petitioner to execute a long list of repairs, including plastering, white-washing, distempering and painting, etc. This was followed by a letter dated 14th October. 1958 written by the Land Acquisition Collector to the petitioner, the relevant part whereof runs as follows:- "in this connection it may be stated that it has since been intimated by the Manager of the Murshidabad Estate that Sahebjada Syed Karim Ali Meerza, Deputy Minister for Commerce and Industry, Government of Westbengal, the allottee of the premises will leave for Murshidabad with his family during the Puja holidays and the house will remain vacant. You are, therefore, requested to take up and complete the repairs noted in the notice under section 4 (b) of the Act within the Puja holidays when the house will remain vacant. As the allottee has been extremely inconvenienced for want of repairs you are requested to treat this matter as extremely urgent. "
(3.) THE petitioner having no other remedy open to him has come to this Court and a rule was issued on the 6th February, 1959 calling upon the respondent to show cause why the order of requisition should not be quashed or cancelled and for other reliefs, and an interim injunction was issued restraining the respondent from giving effect to the notice dated 9th October, 1958. In this application the above facts have all been stated. In paragraph 14, the petitioner has stated his grounds. The respondent No. 6 is now stated to be the allottee of the requisitioned premises being a son of Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad. In the grounds it has been stated that the premises have not been requisitioned for any public purpose and that the requisition of a house for a Deputy Minister in the Department of Commerce and Industry is not a public purpose. In support of this submission it has been alleged that under the provisions of the West Bengal Salaries and Allowances Act (Act V of l952) a Deputy Minister of the State Government is not entitled to a house without paying any rent or to a furnished residence in Calcutta. Finally it has been categorically stated that the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad, the father of the respondent No. 6, has got the following houses in Calcutta. I am setting out the exact description as contained in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 14. " (i) A palatial building standing on approximately 4 bighas of land being premises No. 85 Park Street, Calcutta. The said premises contains approximately 40 large rooms most of which are lying vacant. In addition thereto there are about 30 small rooms in the said premises. (ii) A huge mansion being premises No. 26 Chowringhee Road, Calcutta which is situate next to the Indian Museum, The ground floor of the said premises is let out as shop rooms to various parties e g. . Samuel Fitze and Co. Ltd. and others. There are large numbers of flats on the upper storeys of the said premises. The annual Municipal valuation of the said premises is approximately Rs. 50,000/ -. (iii) Premises No. 25 Upper Chitpore Road, Calcutta. (iv) Premises No. 17, Lord Sinha Road, Calcutta. (v) Premises No. 132, Acharyya Prafulla Chandra Road previously known as Upper Circular Road, Calcutta. (vi) Premises No. 5. Nawab Lane, Calcutta. ";