LILAVATI BAI versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 721 · Decided: 05-03-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• ' 
I 
• 
I .,. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
721 
LILAVATI BAI 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOl\fBAY 
(S. R. DAS c. ]., VENKATARAMAAYYAR, B. P. SINHA, 
S. K. DAs and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) 
Premises, Requisition rif-Constitutional ,1alidity of enactment-
Order of Government on 
declaration of 
vacancy-Enforceabilit;·-
Findings, if liable to be reopened-Power of C:ourt-Tenancy, 
when 
can be deemed to have been terminated-Ejusdem generis, applica-
bility of-Death of a party before the passing of the Order-Ejfect-
Bombay Land Requisition Act (XXXIII of 1948), 
as 
amended by 
·-..( Amendment Act II of 1950 and Second Ame?dment Act XXXIX ef 
1950, ss. 
5, 6, 6 Explanation 
(a)-Constitutzon of Indza, Arts. 
19(1) (f), 31, 32, 226. 
By these t'.vo petitions, the petitioner challenged the constitu-
tional validity of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 
1948, as 
amended by the two amending Acts of 1950, and the enforceability 
.of an order of requisition made by the Governor of Bombay under 
s. 6 (4) (a) of the Act. 
The petitioner a' the widow of the tenant 
claimed to be in possession, while the case made on behalf of the 
Government was that the tenant had before his death vacated the 
premises and handed ovc.r possession to a lodg.o:r. 
A copy of the 
order of requisition was affixed to the premises and the petitioner 
moved the High Court for a writ of inandamus, but the petition 
was dismissed. The Act was passed by the State Legislature on 
April I l, 1948, and by the first amending Act its life was extended 
for two years and by the second the vvords "the purpose of the 
State or any other public purpose" 'vere substituted for the \VOrds 
"any purpose" occurring in s. 5 o[ the Act \Vith retrospective 
effect from the date of the Constitution. 
The Act came up for 
consideration in a previous decision of this Court and arguments 
were confined to grounds other than those spocifically covered by 
that decision. It was contended on behalf. of the petitioner that 
the Act was in conflict with Art. 31 (2) and.became invalid at the 
cor:imencement of the Constitution and the c..mending Acts, for 
which the assent of the 
President had admittedly not 
been 
obtained, were ineffective under Art. 31(3) of the Constitution . 
It was further contended that ss. 5 and 6 of the Act which made 
the relevant findings of the Government conclusive had the effect 
of impairing the powers of the Court, that it was nevertheless 
open to the. Court to judge whether the facts found constituted 
yacany. in law . and, lastly that the order in questi.on \vas 
ineffective as the tenant was dead on the date it v1as made. 
Hdd1 that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner 
must be negatived. 
1957 
March 5. 
1957 
Lilavati Bai 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay 
722 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
'fhc constitutional validity of the Act \Vas no longer open to 
question under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31 (2) of the Constitution in 
vie\v of the decision of this Court in State of Bombay v. 
Bhanji 
Munji (1955) 1 S.C.R. 777· 
'fhe J\ct, \vhich did not oliviously come \Nithin the mischief 
of cl. (6) of Art. 31, fell within the saving clause, cl. 5(a), of the 
Article and \Vas an existing law \Vitbin the meaning of the 
Constitution and, therefore, valid at the commencement of the 
Constitution, although it did not contain the expression "for a 
public purpose" as required by cl. (2) of the i\rticle. 
Clause (3) of the Article, \vhich in terms applied to la\VS made 
after the commencement of the Constitution, had no application 
to the an1cnding Acts v·:hich \Vere in no \vay concerned \\'ith the 
n1ain substantive provisions of the Act already pa5sed, and the 
\Vant of the President's assent in no \Vay affected their validity. 
As the Act was valid at the commencement of the Con':>Litu~ 
tion and continued to be so thereafter, not being in any \Vay 
inconsist~nt \vith the provisions of Part III of the Constitution so 
as to attract the operation of Art. 13, the Amending Acts \\·ere 
equally valid in la"'· 
Held further, that although in a proper case the High Court 
or this Court in the exercise of their special jurisdictions under the 
Constitution had po\ver to determine how far the provisions of 
the Act had or had not been complied \vith, the finding of the 
State Government under s. 5 of the Act that the tenant had not 
actually resided in the premises for a continuous period of six 
1nonths immediately preceding the date of the order, and that under 
s. 6, the pr~m

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