Kaiki Rustomji Alpaiwalla and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. - Court Judgment |
| Tenancy |
| Mumbai High Court |
| Sep-27-2005 |
| W.P. NoS. 2350 and 2351 of 1998 |
| R.M.S. Khandeparkar and ;V.M. Kanade, JJ. |
| 2006(3)ALLMR691; 2006(1)MhLj522 |
| Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control, Bombay Land Requisition and Bombay Government Premises (Eviction)(Amendment) Act, 1997 |
| Kaiki Rustomji Alpaiwalla and ors. |
| State of Maharashtra and anr. |
| P. Chavhan, Adv., i/b., Madekar and Co. |
| None |
| Petition dismissed |
.....in sub-section (1) of section 34 of the 1996 act with slight modification. therefore, reference to the provisions of section 33 of the 1940 act in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of section 8 of the general clauses act, as reference to the provisions of section 34 of the 1996 act. so far as an appeal filed under section 37 of the 1996 act is concerned, perusal of section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. thus, as the provisions of article 3 of schedule-i do not apply to an application or petition filed under section 34 of the 1996 act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the arbitrator under the 1996 act. in other words nothing contained in article 3 of schedule-i of the bombay court fees act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any award made under the 1996 act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an..........flats owned by the petitioners were requisitioned by order dated 14-6-1950 and they were allotted to respondent no. 2 in both the petitions by order dated 1-12-1959. pursuant to the said order of allotment, respondent no. 2 in each writ petition continued to occupy the said flats. the supreme court in the case of grahak sanstha manch and ors. v. state of maharashtra reported in : [1994]3scr746 , directed government to de-requisition the premises and hand over possession to the owners. in view of the said judgment of the supreme court the petitioners filed aforesaid two writ petitions for quashing the order of requisition passed by the respondent and also sought direction that the possession of the flats be restored. during the pendency of petition, the state government amended provisions of rent act and gave protection to all government allottees by declaring them as deemed tenants under the act. the validity of amendment was challenged in this court and this court struck down the said amendments which were made by the government. the supreme court, however, upheld the validity of the said amendments made to the rent act in case of welfare association, a.r.p. maharashtra.....
V.M. Kanade, J.
1. Both these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by common Judgment since common question of law is involved in both the petitions.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the Writ petitions are as under;
Two flats owned by the petitioners were requisitioned by Order dated 14-6-1950 and they were allotted to respondent No. 2 in both the petitions by order dated 1-12-1959. Pursuant to the said order of allotment, respondent No. 2 in each Writ Petition continued to occupy the said flats. The Supreme Court in the case of Grahak Sanstha Manch and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra reported in : [1994]3SCR746 , directed Government to de-requisition the premises and hand over possession to the owners. In view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court the petitioners filed aforesaid two Writ Petitions for quashing the order of requisition passed by the respondent and also sought direction that the possession of the flats be restored. During the pendency of petition, the State Government amended provisions of Rent Act and gave protection to all Government allottees by declaring them as deemed tenants under the Act. The validity of amendment was challenged in this court and this court struck down the said amendments which were made by the Government. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the validity of the said amendments made to the Rent Act in case of Welfare Association, A.R.P. Maharashtra and Anr. v. Ranjit P. Gohil and Ors. reported in : [2003]2SCR139 . Before the Supreme Court pronounced the decision in Welfare Association, A.R.P. Maharashtra and Anr. v. Ranjit P. Gohil and Ors. case (supra), the petitioners amended the petition and challenged the validity of Amendment Act, 1997.
3. In view of judgment of Supreme Court in Welfare Association, A.R.P. Maharashtra and Anr. v. Ranjit P. Gohil and Ors. case (supra), challenge to the validity of amendment Act of 1997 fails.
4. By virtue of Amendment to the Rent Act, respondent No. 2 are now deemed to be tenants under the Rent Act. In view of this submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be accepted. Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly, dismissed.