LexROY ESTATE versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 343 ·~ ROY ESTATE 'A V. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Civil Appeal No. 3146 of 2009 MAY 1, 2009 B [DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Properly Act, 1952 - ss.3, 6, 6(1A), 6(2), 19 - Release from requisitioning - Requisition of properly in 1942 for purposes of Army during World War-I/ - Thereafter, requisitioning of c property to doctor - On vacation, Deputy Commissioner transferring property to college principal under Rent Act in 1958 - Application for vacation in 1995 - Maintainability of, ... before Deputy Commissioner or Civil Court - Held: Competent Authority would have jurisdiction and that of civil court is barred D .v by s.19 - Requisition of property could not continue indefinite since original purpose had ceased to exist - Deputy Commissioner was not authorized to transfer property to principal u/s.11 (2) of Rent Act as condition for applicability of provision did not exist, thus transfer was bad - More so, E payment of rent would not change the position - Properly requisitioned to be released in favour of the owner.,.. College principal to pay all arrears of rent due - Defence of India Rules ~-,.. - r. 75A - Bihar Building Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1947 - s. 11(2). The question which arose for consideration in this F appeal is whether the property which had been requisitioned for purposes of the Army during World War- II under r.75A of the Defence of India Rules and had been allotted in 1958 to respondent no. 3-college principal, by G the Deputy Commissioner under the Bihar Building Lease .,.I( Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1947, application for its vacation would lie before the Deputy Commissioner, or the civil court. 343 H 344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court ,._ HELD: 1.1 A bare perusal of section 6 (1-A) and 6(2) of the Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable ' Property Act, 1952 would show that the property cannot B be requisitioned permanently and that the maximum period fixed by the Amendment Act of 1970 is 17 years from that date and that section 6 (2) further provides that unless the requisitioned property is acquired under section 7 within the period of 17 years aforesaid, it shall be released to its owner and as far as practicable, be given c to the person from whom the possession had been taken at the time of the requisition or to the successor in interest of such person. The appellant is the successor in interest of the owner from whom the property had been requisitioned in the year 1942. Therefore, the requisition ,,.,, D could not have been continued beyond the year 1987 unless the property had been acquired, which is "' concededly not the case. [Para 8] [355-0-G] 1.2 It was submitted that the status inter se the parties E was that of landlord and tenant, the appellant being the landlord, and as the appellant had been accepting rent ·and had also sought and received an enhancement thereof on several occasions, the suit could not be dismissed on the ground that the civil court's jurisdiction .... F was barred. The payment of rent in such matters would not change the legal position with regard to the rights and obligations of the requisitioning authority and the person from whom the property had been requisitioned. It cannot be accepted that if the appellant whose property has been requisitioned in desperation seeks an enhancement of the G rent, that would ipso-facto create a tenancy so as to preclude the obligations imposed on the Central Govern- ,..., ment under the Act. [Para 9] (356-A-B; 355-G-H] 1.3 Respondent No.3 had been inducted into Katras H House under the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated ROY ESTATE V. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 345 ' ~. 30th April 1958, under section 11 (2) of the Bihar Building A Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1947. It would be clear from a bare perusal of section. 11 (2) (a) that it postulates se~ral conditions for the transfer of a building already in possession of a servant of the Government to any other servant of the Government, but it does not B authorize the transfer of such a building to any other person. Respondent no.3, Ranchi Women's College, is not run or controlled by the Government but is a private college under private management. Therefore, the very order of allotment made on 30th April, 1958 was completely c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.