Requisition of vacant premises for homeless housing upheld, even after eviction for personal occupation and allotment to the evicted occupant.
A room fell within the definition of "premises" under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 because the statutory phrase "let or intended to be let separately" qualified a part of a building, and the Act covered buildings becoming vacant after commencement. Requisition for housing a homeless person was a public purpose, and premises vacated on eviction could be requisitioned even if the landlord had sought possession for personal occupation or had not given vacancy intimation. The allotment to the evicted occupant did not by itself establish mala fides. The requisition and allotment were therefore valid, and the appeal failed.
Issues: (i) Whether the room fell within the definition of "premises" under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 so as to be capable of requisition; (ii) Whether the requisition and allotment were invalid or mala fide because the premises had been vacated after eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and were allotted to the evicted occupant.
Issue (i): Whether the room fell within the definition of "premises" under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 so as to be capable of requisition.
Analysis: The governing definition treated as premises any building or part of a building let or intended to be let separately. The controlling view was that the words "let or intended to be let separately" qualified only a part of a building, not every building, and that the statutory scheme contemplated governmental control over buildings becoming vacant after the Act came into force. The fact that the landlord had earlier sought eviction for personal occupation did not make the room cease to be premises within the Act.
Conclusion: The room was premises within the Act and was capable of requisition.
Issue (ii): Whether the requisition and allotment were invalid or mala fide because the premises had been vacated after eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and were allotted to the evicted occupant.
Analysis: The controlling view was that requisition for housing a homeless person is a public purpose, and that requisition of premises which became vacant on eviction is authorised by the statute whether or not the landlord gave the vacancy intimation. The later requisition law was held not to create an exception for premises vacated after eviction on the landlord's bona fide personal requirement, and no mala fide could be inferred merely because the allottee was the evicted occupant. The statutory scheme was treated as allowing requisition even where the premises had become vacant by eviction, and the landlord's rights under the rent law did not exclude the operation of the requisition law.
Conclusion: The requisition and allotment were valid and not mala fide.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the orders requisitioning and allotting the premises were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Premises that become vacant on eviction can be requisitioned for the public purpose of housing a homeless person, and such requisition is not invalid merely because the premises had earlier been recovered by the landlord for personal occupation or because the allottee is the evicted occupant.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
