Manash Nath Roy, Acting C.J. - (1.) By this Revisional Application, M/s. Kalimpong Land and Building Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said Company), which is a Public Limited Company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its Registered Office at p-11, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, Calcutta and one of their Directors and Shareholders being petitioner No. 2, have asked for a Rule under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and order dated 27th February. 1989, passed in Misc. Case No. 25 of 1988 by the learned District Judge, Darjeeling. Since the parties entered appearance through their learned Advocates as indicated above, the application was heard on contest, for the purpose, whether a Rule should or should not be issued.
(2.) There is a godown known as White Wool Godown (hereinafter referred to as the said godown), at 11th Mile, Kalimpong and the said Company has claimed to be the landlord in respect of the same. The said godown is admittedly a very big one and stated, is constructed on an area of about 53,000 Sq.ft. On or about 24lh May, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner, Darjeeling, in exercise of his powers confined under section 3(1) of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), issued a Show Cause notice asking the said Company to show cause within 15 days of the said notice, as to why the said godown should not be requisitioned. It has been stated that various objections were raised by the said Company against such requisition and thereafter, by a notice of 23rd June, 1964, the said godown was actually requisitioned by the authorities as mentioned hereinbefore and it has hern alleged that possession of the same was forcibly taken by the authorities concerned.
(3.) The action as taken, was claimed to be illegal and arbitrary and it was further claimed that the authorities concerned fixed compensation of the said godown at only Rs. 834/- per month and such steps or actions have also been claimed to be irregular, void and invalid. Admittedly, against such fixation of arbitrary rent and compensation, the erstwhile owners of the said godown filed a case before the Arbitrator appointed under the said Act, being Misc. Judicial Case No. 9 of 1967 and it has been stated that the said proceedings is still pending and it was the categorical case of the said Company that in fact, the decision in the concerned Arbitration case has not been made since 1967 and as a result whereof, the said Company made repeated representations and requests to the authorities concerned, for making arrangements for expeditious hearing of the matter. But all such attempts having failed, the petitioners moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for appointment of an Arbitrator within a stipulated period and the said proceedings was numbered as C. R. No. 1900(W) of 1981 and the same was disposed of on 31st March, 1981, by a learned Single. Judge of this Court. It was directed that the Respondents concerned should take steps for appointment of an Arbitrator as early as possible and preferably not later than six months.;