THE DOMINION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER versus SHRINBAI A. IRANI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 206 · Decided: 14-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955} 
THE DOMINION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
fl. 
SHRINBAI A. IRANI AND ANOTHER. 
fMEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., s. R. DAS, BHAGWATI, 
• 
-~ .· 
}AGANNADHADAS and VENKATAilAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
• 
Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) 
Ordinance, 1946 
(XIX of ]946), els. 2(3) and 3-Efject thereof on the existing requisi-
~ 
tion order in respect of immotfable property_,_Non obstante clause-
" 
Interpretation of. 
Three shoprooms were requisitioned on April '15, 1943, under 
the 
Defence 
of India 
Rules and the requisition order inter alia 
stated .that "the said requisitioned :property shall be continued in 
requisition during the period of. present war and six months there~ 
after or for such shorter period as may be specified by the Food 
Controller, Bombay ..... . ~· 
Held, that on a plain and grammatical construction of els. 2(3) /-
and 3 ·of Ordinance XIX of 1946, the immoveable property which 
when the Defence of India 
Act expired on the 30th September, 
1946, was subject to any requisition 
order 
effected under the Act 
and 
the 
rules 
thereunder, continued to be 
subject to requisition 
until the expiry of Ordinance, no matter whether 
the 
requisit~on 
order 
to which 
the immoveable property 
was 
subject was of a 
limited duration or an indefinite period. 
The ordinary rule is that there should 
be a close approxima· 
tion between ,the non obstante clause and the operative portion 
of '>-
the 
s~ction but the 
non obstante clause need not necessarily and 
al.ways .be co-extensive with the operative part if it has the effect 
of cutting .down the clear terms of an enactment. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRisDICTION : Civil 
Appeal 
No. 154 of 1953. 
'-
Appeal by Special Leave against the Judgment and 
Decree dated the 8th January, 1953, of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal ·No. 117 of 1952 
" 
arising out of Suit No. 235 of 1949 in the said High f 
Court. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for 
India, 
(Porus 
A. Mehta, with them) for the appellants. 
N. A. Palkhivala and S. P. Varma for respondent 
No. 1. 
1954. May 14. 
The 
Judgment of the Court was,... l 
delivered by BHAGW AT! J. 
s:c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
BHAGWATI J~-This appeal by special leave from 
a judgment, of. the High Court . of 
Judicature at 
Bombay in Appeal No. H7 of 1952 raises a short point 
as to the construction of clause. 3 of the Requisitioned 
Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance~ 1946. 
The suit out of which this appeal arises was com-
menced by the 
first respondent against the appel-
lants and the second respondent for delivery of vac~nt 
and peaceful possession of the three shops situated on 
·the ground floor of the premises known as "Irani 
Manzi!." 
The first respondent was the owner of 
the 
said immovable property which had' been requisitioned 
_on the 15th April, 1943, by the Collector of· Bombay 
_in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by rule 
. '· 
75-A(1) of the Defence of India Rules read with the 
' 
Notification of the Government, Defence Co-ordination 
Department, No. 1336/0R/1/42 dated the 15th April, 
1942. · The order of requisition was in the following 
terms:-
"Order No. M.S.C. 467/H-Whereas it is necessary 
·for securing the public safety arid the efficient prose-
. cution of the war to requisition the property specified 
~ in the schedule hereto appended .... '. ... I, M.A. Faiuqui, 
the Collector of Bombay, do hereby requisition the 
said property and direct that possession of the · · said 
_property be delivered forthwith to the Food Controller, 
. Bombay, subject to the following conditions :-
(1) The property shall be continued in 
req~isition 
· during the period of the present war and six months 
thereafter or for such shorter period as may be specifi-
°' ·ed by the Food Controller, Bombay ............ ,,," 
The said premises were used for the purpose of hous-
. ing the Government Grain Shop No. 176, 
By a letter dated the 30th July,· 1946/17th August, 
1946, the 
Controller of Government Grain 
Shops, 
. Bombay, wrote to the first respondent' that · as the 
validity of .the requisitioning order was to expire on 
. the 30th September, 1946, 
the first respondent should 
). ~. allow th~ Pepa,rtIT?-eJ.?-t . to . · re!f!.ain as. her tenantk . in 
respect . of .. the premises_.. The . first .. respondent . replied 
:by her advocate's letter dated 
t~e 27th August, "1946, 
195 .. 
The Dominion of 
India 
and Anothe

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