Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from the requisition of Flat No.G-1, Ground Floor, Beacon Building, Santacruz (West), Mumbai under the Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, 1948. The petitioner, Cyril Ribeiro, was the owner of the flat, having acquired rights through his father Nicholas V. Ribeiro, who owned the Beacon building. In 1949, a different flat (South flat No.1 on top floor) was requisitioned under Section 6 of the Act and allotted to one B.P. Nayak. In 1978, Nicholas Ribeiro entered into a development agreement with Akhtar Hasan Rizvi of M/s. Rizvi Builders under which, as part consideration, he was to receive four flats in the newly constructed building. In 1979, the State permitted demolition on condition that the requisitioned South flat would be de-requisitioned and demolished, and a new flat of 800 sq.ft would be offered for requisition. Pursuant to a consent decree in Suit No.302 of 1981 dated 9 July 1982, Flat No.G-1 was allotted to Nicholas Ribeiro, who nominated the petitioner as member; the decree recorded that the flat would be occupied by a government allottee. Flat No.G-1 was requisitioned on 10 September 1982 and allotted to B.M. Ghatwai, the Original Respondent No.3, for residence on 21 September 1982. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in 1988, contending that indefinite continuation of requisition was arbitrary, without jurisdiction and illegal. After the original allottee retired on 31 July 1990, the State issued a show cause notice under Section 8C(2) on 7 October 1995 in light of the Supreme Court decision in Grahak Sanstha Manch v. State of Maharashtra. The competent authority, by order dated 14 March 1996 under Section 8C(1), found that the flat had been under requisition for about 13 years and need not be continued; it directed the original allottee to vacate within 30 days. The allottee's appeal against that order remained pending without stay. The High Court initially dismissed the petition on 5 August 1998. On special leave, the Supreme Court on 12 February 1999 granted leave, and in the judgment dated 18 February 2003 in Welfare Association, A.R.P. Maharashtra v. Ranjit P. Gohil, upheld the vires of the Rent Act amendment and directed that other issues be remanded to the High Court. By order dated 29 July 2003, the Supreme Court remanded this petition to the High Court for decision consistent with that judgment. Subsequently, the authority issued a further notice in 2006 and another eviction order on 9 April 2010. In 2023, the High Court permitted amendment of the petition and addition of heirs of the deceased allottee as respondents. The State and its authorities filed affidavits contending that the original allottee, having retired before 7 December 1996 and served eviction order before 11 June 1996, was not a protected tenant under the Rent Act. The heirs of the allottee opposed the reliefs. The matter was reserved on 24 October 2024 and pronounced on 23 April 2025, with Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. The provided excerpt ends before the court's final analysis and operative order; therefore, the final decision and ratio decidendi are not available in the text supplied.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction and Appellate Remand - Article 226, Article 136 of Constitution of India - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition and remanded the matter for decision on issues other than the vires of the Rent Act amendment after upholding the amendment in Welfare Association (Paras 22-24). Held that the High Court was free to form its opinion and decide those other issues (Para 24). B) Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, 1948 - De-requisition and Eviction - Section 8C(1) and 8C(2) - Competent authority issued show cause notice and subsequently passed order dated 14 March 1996 holding that continuation of requisition of Flat No.G-1 for about 13 years was unnecessary and directed Original Respondent No.3 to vacate within 30 days; a later order dated 9 April 2010 reiterated vacation (Paras 17-20, 27). Held that the authority had directed de-requisition and vacation, but the appeal against the 1996 order remained pending without stay (Paras 20-21, 27). C) Rent Control and Protected Tenancy - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Whether Original Respondent No.3 was a protected tenant after retirement and after eviction order - Respondents contended that an employee who retired before 7 December 1996 and was served eviction order before 11 June 1996 was not a deemed protected tenant (Paras 29-30). The issue was raised in affidavits and required determination after remand (Paras 29-30). Held not mentioned in excerpt. D) Arbitrariness of Indefinite Requisition - Continuation of Requisition - Section 6(1) of Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, 1948 - The petitioner asserted that indefinite continuation of requisition was arbitrary, without jurisdiction and illegal, and the Supreme Court decision in Grahak Sanstha Manch prompted the State to consider de-requisition (Paras 14, 17). The authority itself recorded that the flat need not be continued under requisition (Para 20). Held not finally determined in provided text; matter remained for High Court decision after remand (Paras 24, 30). E) Procedural History - Remand and Subsequent Proceedings - Civil Procedure - After Supreme Court remand in 2003, the State issued further notices and orders, and the High Court permitted amendment to bring heirs on record; affidavits were filed opposing relief (Paras 25-30). Held that Rule was made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent (Para 1), but final judgment is beyond provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the requisition of Flat No.G-1 should be continued after the competent authority passed orders under Section 8C(1) directing vacation; whether the original allottee is a protected tenant under the Rent Act; whether the petitioner is entitled to release and possession; what issues remain after Supreme Court remand.
Law Points
- Mandamus under Article 226
- de-requisition under Section 8C(1) of Maharashtra Land Requisition Act
- 1948
- protected tenancy under Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- arbitrary continuation of requisition
- Supreme Court remand in Welfare Association v. Ranjit P. Gohil
