Deeming vacancy under requisition law is independent of rent-control permissions; colourable tenancy transfers cannot defeat requisition.

The Court held that the Bombay Rent Act and the Bombay Land Requisition Act operate in distinct fields and are not to be read together so as to limit the deeming vacancy under Explanation (a) to Section 6 of the Requisition Act. A transfer permitted under the Rent Act did not prevent vacancy from arising under the Requisition Act's independent statutory fiction. On the facts, the assignment of tenancy and business was treated as a colourable device to secure an unlawful transfer of tenancy rights, not a protected transfer. The requisition was therefore upheld and the fundamental-rights challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 had to be construed together so as to limit the deeming vacancy under Explanation (a) to Section 6 of the latter Act to transfers prohibited by Section 15(1) of the former Act; (ii) whether the assignment of the tenancy and business in favour of the petitioners was a protected transfer or only a colourable device to secure an unlawful transfer of tenancy rights, so that the petitioners could resist requisition and claim violation of fundamental rights.

Issue (i): Whether the two Acts had to be construed together so as to limit the deeming vacancy under Explanation (a) to Section 6 of the latter Act to transfers prohibited by Section 15(1) of the former Act.

Analysis: The Rent Act was held to regulate the landlord-tenant relationship, eviction, rent, and permitted transfers of tenancy interests in specified cases, while the Requisition Act was held to operate in a distinct field concerned with requisition of vacant premises for public purposes. The Court held that the two enactments were not in pari materia. Section 6 of the Requisition Act contained its own deeming provision and the Explanation created vacancy on assignment or transfer of tenancy interest without importing the limitation suggested from the Rent Act. The permissibility of a transfer under the Rent Act did not prevent the statutory fiction of vacancy under the Requisition Act.

Conclusion: The contention that Explanation (a) to Section 6 had to be confined to prohibited transfers under the Rent Act was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the assignment of the tenancy and business in favour of the petitioners was a protected transfer or only a colourable device to secure an unlawful transfer of tenancy rights, so that the petitioners could resist requisition and claim violation of fundamental rights.

Analysis: On the materials in the record and the nature of the transaction, the assignment was treated as intended in substance to obtain a transfer of tenancy rights prohibited by Section 15(1) of the Rent Act and not as a genuine transfer protected by the notification issued under the proviso to that section. As the petitioners could not establish a lawful right in the premises on that basis, they could not defeat requisition on the ground of absence of vacancy, nor could they complain of infringement of rights under Articles 19(1)(f) or 19(1)(g). The challenge to the requisition order therefore failed on merits.

Conclusion: The assignment was held to be a colourable device and the constitutional challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The requisition proceedings were upheld and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A permissive transfer under one rent-control statute does not restrict an independent deeming fiction of vacancy under a separate requisition statute, and a transaction found to be a colourable device for an unlawful transfer of tenancy rights cannot be used to defeat statutory requisition or support a fundamental-rights challenge.

---