D. K. NABHIRAJIAH versus THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 26-05-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
Gurbttchan Sinzh 
v. 
The State of 
Bomboy 
and Another. 
Muk_herjea ]. 
1952 
May 26. 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
suspect. The power to initiate proceedings under the 
Act has been vested in a very high and responsible 
officer and he is expected to act with caution and 
impartia!'ity while discharging his duties under the 
Act. 
This 
contention 
of 
Mr. Umrigar 
must, there-
fore, fail. 
The last point made by Mr. Umrigar d0es not seem 
to us to be tenable. 
It is true that a procedure 
·'-. • 
different from what is laid down under the ordinary 
law has been provided _for a particular class of persons 
against whom proceedings could be taken under sec-
'-...
tion 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, but the 
discrimination if any is based upon a reasonable classi- . 
fication which is within the competency of the legis-
lature to make. Having regard to the objective which 
. • 
the legislation has in view and the policy underlyiag it, 
a departure from the ordinary procedure can certainly' 
'be justified as the best means of giving effect to the 
object 
of 
the 
legislature. 
In 
our 
opinion, 
there-
fore, 
there is no substance in the petition and it 
shall stand dismissed. 
Petition dismissed. 
_4· 
Agent for the petitioner: P. K. Chatterjee. 
Agent for the respondents : P. A. Mehta. 
D. K. NABHIRAJIAH 
v. 
THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS. 
[PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MEHER CHAND MAH,AJAN, 
MUKHERJEA, DAS and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.J 
Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948-
Va/idity-F,,ndamental right not to be deprived of property-Con-
stitutiou of India, Arts. 31 (2), 19 (!) (!)-Order of allotment ~efore 
Constit"tion came into for'l'e-Possession taken thereafter-Valid-
ity of proceedings-Writ for quashing orders-Maintainability. 
' 
A house belonging to the petitioner in the Bangalore City 
-' 0 -< 
l'cll vacant on the !st September, 1949, 
and 
on 
the 
13th 
September, 1949, an order was passed by 
the Rent Co"troller 
• 
-.. , 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
under 
the 
Mysore 
House 
Rent and Accommodation Con-
trol Order, 1948, allotting the house to another person and 
directing the petitioner to deliver possession to the latter. The 
petitioner protested and took various steps to get the order 
vacated but he was 
unsuccessful 
and forcible possession wu 
taken from him under an order made on the 11th April, 1950. 
He applied to the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Con-
stitution for quashing the 
order 
allotting the 
house 
and 
the 
subsequent orders made to enforce that order, on the ground, 
inter 
alia, 
that 
these 
orders 
contravened 
the 
provisions_ of 
Arts. 31 
(2) and 19 
(1) (£) 
of the Constitution: 
Held, (i) that as the order of allotment was made before the 
Constitution came into force and at a time when the Control 
Order provided, validly, that a house could be taken for the 
occupation of a private individual, the order could not be im-
pugned on the ground that it contravened Art. 31(2) or 19(1) (f) 
of the Constitution; (ii) the fact that possession was actually 
taken on! y in pursuance of an order made on the 11th April, 
1950, was immaterial as the petitioner's right to possession was 
lost earlier; (iii) Art. 31 (2) was inapplicable for another reason 
also, namely, that there was no acquisition of the house by the 
State, as taking of possession can only be from a person who is 
entitled to possession and the landlord lost this right to posses-
sion by reason of the Controller's order. 
Held also, that the power conferred by cl. (bb) of sub-cl. {2) 
>-· 
of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules (under which the Con-
trol Order was made) was not confined to cases where the house 
was available for letting or subletting in the 
sense 
that the 
landlord did not require the house for his own use or had 
not let it to another himself. 
ORIGINAL JurusDICTION : Petition No. 297 of 1951. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India 
for enforcement of fundamental rights by quashing 
the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and House 
_.,. 
Rent Controller, Bangalore, allotitjing \the' petitfoner's 
house to the 3rd respondent and for taking forcible 
possession of the same. 
S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar for the petitioner. 
A. R. Somanatha Iyer, Advocate-General of Mysore, 
(R. Ganapathy Iyer, with him) for the respondent No. 1. 
K. Ramaseshayya 
Chowdhury for the respondent 
~ 
No. 2. 
1952. May 26. The Judgment of the Court w;u 
delivered 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.