MAHESHCHANDRA TRIPANJI GAJJAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 195 · Decided: 09-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHESHCHANDRA TRIPANil GAJJAR 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS~ 
MARCH 9, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Bombay Rents· Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control, the Bombay 
Land Requisiti'on and Government Premises (Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1996-
Sections 5( lA) and 15-B-Government allottee to be treate_d as deemed tenant 
of requisitioned premises-Bombay Land Requisition and Bombay Government 
Premises (Eviction) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997-Requisitioned premises 
allotted to a Government servant were derequisitioned by High Court~He 
continued in possession even after retirement and derequisition-High Court 
declined to evict him in view of interim stay granted by the Supreme Court in 
a pending SU' challenging the amendments-On appeal Held, he had no right 
to continue in possession and cannot be treated a deemed tenant even if 
amendments are assumed valid-Interim stay in pending SU' not applicable as 
he was not even accorded status of a tenant under the amendments-Bombay 
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-Bombay Land 
Requisition Act, 1948-Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. 
Wonts- and Phrases-"Allowed"-Meaning in context of the Bombay 
I 
Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rules Control, the Bombay Land Requisition 
and Government Premises (Eviction) (Amendment)Act, 1996-Section 5( JA) 
(b). 
Amendment Act No. XVI of 1997 amended the Boinbay Rents Hotel 
and Lodging House Rates Control, t~e Bombay Land Requisition and 
Government Premises (Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1996 and it gave gov-
ernment allottees of derequisitioned premises the status of a deemed ten· 
ant. The Bombay Land Requisition and Bombay Government Premises 
(Eviction) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1997 was issued on 26th December, 
1997 amending Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control 
Act, 1947, Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 and Bombay Government 
Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. The Amendment Act of 1996 was declared 
unconstitutional by the High Court against which a Special Leave Petition 
195 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
was preferred ih this Court and an interim stay from dispossession of the 
tenants of such premises was granted. 
Respondent No. 3, a Government Servant, was allotted the premises 
in question and he continued to be in possession even after retirement and a 
derequisition order of the High Court. The High Court, however, declined 
restoration of possession to the appellant as the Special Leave Petition was 
pending and directed him to abide by the order of stay granted by this 
Court. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant contend before this Court that even if the Amend.illent 
Act was assumed to ~e valid, respondent No. 3 would have no right to 
continue in possession; and that none of the amendments gave him a right 
.. as a deemed tenant after retirement. 
Respondent No. 3 contended that he is entitled to continue in posse8-
sion in view of the interim stay granted in the pending Special Leave 
Petition. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Allowing a retired person to indefinitely remain in occupa-
tion or possession of the requisitioned premises was not the object of the 
Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control, the Bombay Land 
Requisition and Government Premist>.s (Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1996. 
The object was to protect those who would have been rendered homeless 
though still in Government service due to &bortage of accommodation and 
it being not possible to give suitable alternative accommodation. The Gov-
ernment had no obligation or policy to provide accommodation to a retired 
employee, which would amount to conferring a special benefit to occupants 
. of requisitioned accommodation as a superannuation benefit. This was 
clearly not the object of the amendments as it would amount to creating a 
special class of employees which would become tenant under the original 
owner after retirement with the benefits and all protection under the 
Bombay Rent Hotels and Lodging Houses Rent Rate Control Act, 1947. 
[207-D-E] 
Grahak Sanstha Manch & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, [1994) 4 SCC 
192, relied on. 
H 
2.1. The deletion of the words "allowed by State Government to 
M.T. GAJJAR v. STATE 
197 
remain" from Section 5(1A)(b) of the Amendment Act of 1997 by Ordi-
nance dated 26th December, 1997 also does not alter status of an occupant 
like respondent No. 

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