Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the requisition of Flat No. 307, B-Wing, Aradhana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Naigaum, Mumbai, by the State of Maharashtra. The flat was requisitioned on 23 September 1954 and allotted to the Commissioner of Police. The petitioner company, engaged in construction and development, challenged the requisition order and the constitutional validity of Section 9(1A)(b) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, seeking derequisition and vacant possession. The challenge was prompted after the Supreme Court, in Grahak Sanstha Manch & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra (1995), directed the State to derequisition premises. During pendency of the writ petition, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, came into force, and Sections 7(2) and 27 deemed allottees of requisitioned premises to be tenants, thus protecting their possession. The petitioners contended that the individual allottee, M.A. Khan, had retired and vacated before 7 December 1996, and the government continued in occupation without statutory protection. They argued that the word 'person' in Section 7(2)(b) of the 1999 Act refers only to a living individual and not to a government department, and therefore the police department could not be a government allottee. The State defended the validity of the provisions and their applicability. The court examined the scheme of the Act and the definition of 'person' under Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which includes any company, association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. It held that the term 'person' in Section 7(2)(b) is not restricted to living persons but embraces artificial entities, and thus the Commissioner of Police was a valid government allottee. It also noted that the Supreme Court in Welfare Association A.R.P., Maharashtra v. Ranjit P. Gohil had already upheld the constitutionality of the relevant provisions. Consequently, the court declared that the requisition order continued to be valid and that the government's occupation was lawful, dismissing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Statutory Interpretation - Definition of 'person' - The term 'person' in Section 7(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 includes artificial persons by virtue of Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and is not limited to living individuals - The court rejected the petitioner's contention that a government department cannot be a 'government allottee' for residential premises, holding that the General Clauses Act definition applies and a department like the Commissioner of Police is a valid allottee and deemed tenant - Held that the petition fails and the requisition order remains valid (Paras 6-10, 12-13).
B) Rent Control and Requisition - Protection to Government Allottee - Under Sections 7(2)(a) and (b) and 27 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, government allottees of requisitioned premises are deemed tenants and entitled to protection from eviction - The provisions classify allottees into non-residential and residential categories, and the State Government or its department is not excluded from being an allottee for residential purposes; on the enforcement date, the government allottee becomes a tenant of the landlord and the premises are deemed let - The court applied the ratio of Welfare Association A.R.P., Maharashtra & Anr. v. Ranjit P.Gohil & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1266, which upheld the validity of these provisions, and concluded that the government's continued occupation of the flat was lawful (Paras 4, 7-9, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the word 'person' in Section 7(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 refers only to a living person and whether the ratio of Welfare Association A.R.P., Maharashtra & Anr. v. Ranjit P. Gohil & Ors. is applicable to the facts where the individual allottee had vacated before the relevant date
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The court held that the word 'person' in Section 7(2)(b) includes artificial persons, so the Commissioner of Police is a valid government allottee and deemed tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The requisition order remained valid, and the government's occupation was lawful.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'person' under General Clauses Act
- 1897
- distinction between residential and non-residential government allottees
- deemed tenancy under Section 27 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- protection from eviction of government allottees except on grounds specified in Act
- validity of requisition orders upheld
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (09) 95
Writ Petition No. 1665 of 1996
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, V.M. Kanade
Percy D. Ghandy with R.J. Majra (for petitioners), R.J. Mande, AGP (for respondents)
Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mr. Sharokh Ardeshir Sabavala
The State of Maharashtra, Controller of Accommodation, The Accommodation Officer, Mr. R.P. Khot
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the requestion order passed under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 and the constitutional validity of Section 9(1A)(b) of that Act, and seeking vacant possession of a residential flat.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that the order of requisition (October 1985/23 September 1954) was null and void, that Section 9(1A)(b) was arbitrary, that the flat stood derequisitioned, and direction to hand over vacant possession to the petitioners.
Filing Reason
The Supreme Court's direction in Grahak Sanstha Manch to derequisition premises led the petitioners to file the petition; the subsequent amendment to the Bombay Rent Act creating deemed tenancy for government allottees prompted the challenge to its validity.
Previous Decisions
The Supreme Court in Grahak Sanstha Manch & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (1995) directed derequisition; in Welfare Association A.R.P., Maharashtra v. Ranjit P. Gohil (2003) upheld the validity of the 1999 Act's provisions.
Issues
Whether the order of allotment is protected by the Amendment Act of 1996 (Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999).
Whether the word 'person' in Section 7(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 refers only to a living person.
Whether the government department can be a 'government allottee' for residential premises.
Whether the ratio of Welfare Association A.R.P. v. Ranjit P. Gohil applies when the individual allottee vacated before the relevant date.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the individual allottee, M.A. Khan, had retired and vacated the premises before 7 December 1996, leaving the government as occupant, and therefore the protection of Sections 7 and 27 did not apply.
Petitioners contended that the term 'person' in Section 7(2)(b) means a living person only, as indicated by the phrase 'a person or his legal heir', and the Commissioner of Police could not be a government allottee for residential purposes.
Respondents maintained that the amendment's validity was upheld by the Supreme Court, and the Commissioner of Police, as a government department allotted the premises, was a valid government allottee entitled to deemed tenancy.
Ratio Decidendi
The term 'person' in Section 7(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is not limited to living individuals but includes artificial persons by virtue of Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. A government department to which residential premises are allotted under requisition is a 'government allottee' and becomes a deemed tenant upon commencement of the Act, entitled to protection from eviction except on grounds specified in the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
From the aforesaid two Sections, it is very clear that the word 'Government allottee' has been classified in two categories viz. in respect of the premises which are requisitioned for non-residential purposes and secondly, for residential purposes.
It is not possible to give a restricted meaning to the word 'person' used in the aforesaid Section.
The word 'person' under Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as under:- '3(42) "person" shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not;'
From the said definition, it can be seen that the word 'person' does not necessarily mean a living person but also includes an artificial person.
Procedural History
The flat was requisitioned by the State of Maharashtra on 23 September 1954 and allotted to the Commissioner of Police. The Supreme Court in Grahak Sanstha Manch (1995) directed derequisition of premises. The petitioners filed the instant writ petition in 1996 challenging the requisition order and Section 9(1A)(b) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act. During pendency, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 came into force with Sections 7(2) and 27 deeming government allottees as tenants. The Supreme Court in Welfare Association (2003) upheld the validity of those provisions. The matter was heard and decided by this court on 13 September 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 7(2), 27
- Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948: 9(1A)(b)
- General Clauses Act, 1897: 3(42)
