Restoration of requisitioned property turns on current legal entitlement after lease expiry; prior occupation alone creates no right to repossess.

After expiry of a fixed-term lease and the end of requisition under a temporary statute, the former lessees had no subsisting contractual or statutory right to demand return of possession. The requisition transferred only physical possession to the State, while ownership remained with the owners, and the operative direction for restoration had to be assessed on the basis of entitlement at the time of release from requisition. The Court held that prior occupation and protection against forcible dispossession did not create a continuing right to repossess, and the facts did not establish holding over because landlord consent was absent. Possession was therefore to be restored to the owners, and the challenge to that direction failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after expiry of the lease and lapse of the requisition statute, possession of the requisitioned premises was required to be restored to the former lessees or to the owners, and whether the former lessees could claim any continuing possessory right as tenants holding over.

Analysis: The requisition order under the temporary statute transferred only physical possession to the State, while ownership remained with the owners. The lease had been granted for a fixed term without a renewal clause and had expired by efflux of time before the final direction for restoration was implemented. On the date of the operative directions, the former lessees had ceased to have subsisting leasehold rights, and their earlier juridical possession could not be treated as a continuing lawful right to demand return of possession. The Court distinguished between mere protection against forcible dispossession and an enforceable right to repossess after the lease had ended. It also held that the facts did not support a case of holding over, since such a tenancy requires the landlord's consent, and a tenant at sufferance does not acquire a right to restoration. The statutory scheme of requisition contemplated inquiry by the State as to the person appearing to be entitled to possession, and the expired lease materially affected that entitlement.

Conclusion: The former lessees had no enforceable right to restoration of possession, and the direction to restore the property to the owners was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the challenged order directing restoration in favour of the owners was not interfered with.

Ratio Decidendi: After expiry of a fixed-term lease and cessation of requisition, a former lessee who has no subsisting contractual or statutory entitlement cannot claim restoration of possession merely on the basis of prior occupation; possession must be restored to the person legally entitled at the time of release from requisition.

---