LexBABURAO SHANTARAM MORE versus THE BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• 1954 • 1¥ aryam Singh and Another ,. Amarnalh and Another. 1953 bee. 18. 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954J quite properly in doing so. In our opinion there is no ground on which in an appeal by special leave under article 136 we should interfere. The appeal, therefore, must stand dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellants : M. M. Sinha. Agent for the respondent: K. L. Mehta. BABURAO SHANTARAM MORE v. THE BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER. [PATANJ ALI SASTRI C. J., s. R. DAS, VIVIAN BosE, GHULAM HASAN and JAGANNADHADAS JT.J Constitution of India, art. 14-Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodg- ing House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947), s. 4- Bombay Housing Board (Amendment) Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951) inserting new s. 3-A in Bombay Housing Board Act (Act LXIX of 1948)-Whether ultra vires the Constitution. Held, that neither s. 4 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947) nor the new s. 3-A inserted in Bombay Housing Board Act, (Act LXIX of 1948) by the Amending Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951) is ultra vires art. 14 of the Constitution. The facts and argurnents are sufficiently stated in the Judgtnent. ORIGINAL JullisnicnoN PETITION No. 271 of 1952 : Petition for special leave to appeal No. 108 of 1952. Petition under article 32 of the Constitution and petition for special leave against the Judgment and Order stated the 7th July, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Chagla C. J. and Gajendra- gadkar J.) in Civil Revision Application No. 567 of 1952. /. B. Dadachanji for the petitioner. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Porus A. Mehta, with them) for the respondents . 1953. December 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs J. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 573 DAs J.-The petitioner before us is in occupation of ·two rooms Nos. 387 and 388 in Barrack No. T-93 in Sion Dharavi Camp· in Greater Bombay. The camp consisting of several tenements was constructed and owned by the Government of India during the last world war for the use of the military. In 1948 the Government of Bombay now represented by the State · 0£ Bombay purchased the camp and entrusted the management thereof to the Bombay Provincial Hous- ing Board-a body constituted by a Government Resolution. In the same year the Bombay Housing Board, the. respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the Board), was established by the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Act No. LXIX of 1948) as a body corporate, competent to acquire and hold property. The purposes of the Act included the management and use of lands and buildings belonging to or vested in the Board. The Board is authorised to frame and execute housing schemes._ Under section 3(3) the Board is to be deemed to be a local authority for the purposes of that Act and the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1948. Section 54 (3) provides that all assets en- trusted to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board shall upon a declaration made by the Government of Bom- bay vest in the Board. On 1st June, 1949, the Govern- ment of Bombay having made the necessary declara- tion the Sion Dharavi Camp vested in 'the Board. It appears ,that before the camp was made over to the Bombay Provincial Housing -Board certain persons including the petitioner had, without any authority or title, occupied portions ·of the camp. An arrangement was made that the petitioner and the other persons who had gone into occuptation of portions of the camp would pay such rent as would be fixed by the Govern- ment of Bombay. The Government of Bombay undertook to carry out certain repairs to the camp with the object of reconditioning the same and tl1e petitioner and others also agreed to pay such rent as the Govern- ment would then fix. The petitioner and others si uned a letter embodying the terms of the agreement. "'The petitioner's rent was originally fixed at Rs. 14 per month. The Government of Bombay then reconditioned 1953 Baburao , Shantaram More . ·v . . The Bombay Hotising Board~ · and Another. · ·Das]. 1953 Baburao Shantaram More v. The Bombay Housing Board and Another. Das]. 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] the structures at considerable cost and the revised rent in respect of the rooms in the occupation of the petitioner worked out at Rs. 56-8 per month. In o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.