KUNAL R. CHAUDHARI versus PURSHOTTAM B. TODI AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 970 · Decided: 11-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
KUNAL R. CHAUDHARI 
v. 
PURSHOTIAM B. TODI AND ANR. 
MARCH 11, 1997 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND (J.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 
Sections 5(1-A) and 15-B (as inserted by-Maharashtra Ordinance No. 23 of 
1996).' 
"Govemme11t allottee"-Defi11ition of-Requirements of-State Govern-
ment passed Order 011 24-7-1996 calli11g upon the occupant to vacate the 
premises and hand over the same to government-Subsequently, State 
Government authorised area Sub- Inspector to take vacant possession of said 
premises from the occupant on or before 30-8-1996-But said Order could 
D not be implemented since Supreme Court pennitted the occupant to remain 
in occupation of the premises till 26-2-1997-Held: On the date of commen-
cement of the Ordinance, i.e.,7-12-1996 the occupant was not a person who 
was "allowed" by the State Government to remain in occupation of the said 
premises within the meaning of S.5(1- A)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act and 
E S.9(8) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act-Such occupant was not a 
"Government allottee" and, there[ ore, could not seek the benefit of S.15-B of 
the Rent Act or S.9(8) of the Land Requisition Act-Bombay Land Requisi-
tion Act, 1948, S.9(8). 
The premises belonging to the respondent were allotted to the 
F appellant's mother by the State Government under the Bombay Land 
Requisition Act, 1948. ·After the death of his mother the appellant con· 
tinued in possession. The appellant was not a Government Servant but was 
allotted the same, being a homeless person. 
The respondent tiled a writ petition in the High Court for directing 
G the State Government to derequisition the said premises and to hand over 
the. _possession of the same to him, which was allowed. On 24-7-1996 the 
State Government passed an Order calling upon the appellant to vacate 
. the premises and hand over the same to the government. Subsequently, the 
State Government authorised the area Sub-Inspector in the office of the 
H Controller of Accommodation to take vacant possession of the said 
970 
--
KUN AL R. CHAUDHARI v. PURSHOTIAM B. TOOi 
971 
premises from the appellant on or before 30-8-1996. 
Being aggrieved the appellant preferred a Special Leave Petition 
(SLP). While dismissing the SLP, this Court permitted the appellant to 
remain in occupation till 26-2-1997. The appellant filed the usual under- · 
taking. 
A 
B 
Subsequently, the Maharashtra Or~inance No. 23 ·of 1996, which 
commenced on 7-12-1996, inserted Sections 5(1-A) and 15-B in the Bombay 
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 and Section 
9(8) in the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. In view of these amend-
ments the appellant filed the present Interlocutory Application claiming C 
that he was a "Government allottee" under Clause (b) of Section 5(1-A) of 
the Bombay Rent Act, that he was entitled to continue in the premises as 
a statutory tenant and, therefore he should be discharged from the said 
ttndertaking. 
Dismissing the application, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The definition of "Government allottee" in Clause (l·A) 
D 
of Section S or the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Con-
trol) Act, 1947 comprises two clauses, viz., (a) ·and (b) and that the 
appellant claims to fall under clause (b). But for falling under clause (b), E 
he should satisfy the following two requirements: [978-C-D] 
(1) The requisitioned premises are allotted by the State Government 
to him for residential purpose and (2) on the date of coming into force of 
the said Ordinance, the appellant "is allowed by the State Government to 
remain in occupation or possession of such premises for his······--······ F 
residence". [978-E] 
1.2. The definition of "Government allottee" in the explanation ap-
pended to Section 9(8) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 is in the 
same terms. The Ordinance was issued on and commenced on 7-12-1996. 
The question is whether it can be said that on 7-12-1996 the appellant is a G 
person who "is allowed by the State Government to remain in occupation 
or possession of the said premises for his residence". The State Govern-
ment has passed two Orders. Under the Order dated 24-7- 1996, the 
appellant was called upon to vacate the premises and band over the same 
to) the Government so as to enable it to derequisition the said premises H 
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 2S.C.R. 
A and deliver possession of the same to the landlord as directed by the High 
Court.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.