Skip to content


The Dist. Magistrate, Meerut and anr. Vs. Jagdish Saran Rastogi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Appeal No. 271 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1976All404
ActsUttar Pradesh (Temp.) Accommodation and Requisition Act, 1947 - Sections 3
AppellantThe Dist. Magistrate, Meerut and anr.
RespondentJagdish Saran Rastogi
Appellant AdvocateR.N. Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel
Respondent AdvocateH.C. Rastogi and ;Vinay Singh, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
property - requisition - section 3 of u.p.(temp.) accommodation and requisition act, 1947 - house being requisitioned to achieve government policy - held, requisition of accommodation not permissible for implementing government policy and requisition could only be made when property needed for specific public purpose. - .....and his need for the requisitioned house did not exist. however, the order did not recite the actual purpose for which the house was being requisitioned. all it stated was that the house was urgently required for public purpose. the order was quashed by the learned single judge on the ground that neither the order itself nor the counter affidavit showed what the actual purpose was.2. having heard learned standing counsel we are in agreement with the learned single judge that the order was illegal and is liable to be quashed. the order itself, as already stated, does not recite the actual purpose for which the house was requisitioned. the notice issued to the landlord and to the occupant before requisitioning the house states:'and whereas the said tenant has got his own house in.....
Judgment:

G.C. Mathur, J.

1. This is an appeal by the District Magistrate, Meerut, against the judgment of a learned single Judge quashing an order of requisition dated July 13, 1973. By this order a residential house was sought to be requisitioned. The order recited that one Mahesh Prakash was living as a tenant in the house and that he had suitable alternative accommodation available to him. It further recited that the landlord, respondent in this appeal, was also in possession of spacious accommodation and his need for the requisitioned house did not exist. However, the order did not recite the actual purpose for which the house was being requisitioned. All it stated was that the house was urgently required for public purpose. The order was quashed by the learned single Judge on the ground that neither the order itself nor the counter affidavit showed what the actual purpose was.

2. Having heard learned standing counsel we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the order was illegal and is liable to be quashed. The order itself, as already stated, does not recite the actual purpose for which the house was requisitioned. The notice issued to the landlord and to the occupant before requisitioning the house states:

'and whereas the said tenant has got his own house in Mohanpuri Meerut which he has rented out at an abnormal rent to some person;

and whereas in view of Government policy such tenants should vacate the houses under their tenancies and should shift to their own house.'

It is for achieving this Government policy that the house was being requisitioned. It was not requisitioned for any actual public purpose that had arisen but in order to implement Government policy. A requisition of accommodation under the U.P. Accommodation Requisition, Act, 1947, is not permissible for implementing Government policy. Under this Act the requisition could only be made 'when property was needed for a specific public purpose.

3. The appeal is without merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //