In a relief that took over 8 decades to come for a 93-year-old woman, the High Court of Bombay has directed the State Govt to return to her two south Mumbai flats that were requisitioned in the early 1940s.
The flats to be given back to Alice Dsouza are on the 1st floor of Ruby Mansion on Barrack Road, behind Metro Cinema, & are 500sqft & 600sqft in area. On March 28, 1942, Ruby Mansion was requisitioned for the "defence of India". Gradually, possession of flats was handed back to its owner, except for the 1st floor.
Justice Ramesh Dhanuka & Justice Milind Sathaye directed the state on Thursday to hand over "vacant & peaceful possession of the subject matter premises" to the petitioner-owner Dsouza after taking their possession from the current occupants within 8 weeks. They allowed Dsouza's plea for the flats & dismissed the occupants' pleas.
Dismissing the plea of the current occupants, Bombay HC has directed the State Govt to return 2 flats in a south Mumbai building to its 93-year-old owner Alice Dsouza. On July 17, 1946, the governor of Bombay, under the Defence of India Rules, had directed Dsouza's father H S Dias to let out the premises to D S Laud, a Govt employee. On July 24, 1946, the collector directed the release of the flats from requisition. Despite the order, possession was not handed over to Dias.
On June 21, 2010, the controller of accommodation, under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, directed Laud's son Mangesh & daughter Kumud Fondekar to vacate the flats. Laud had died by then.
On August 26, 2011, the appellate authority upheld the order. Then, in 2012, Mangesh's widow & their three children, & Fondekar, who subsequently passed away, & her grandson moved the high court.
The judges said there was no merit in the submission by advocate Sharan Jagtiani, who appeared for the occupants, that as the Bombay Land Requisition Act came into force on April 11, 1948, & the July 1946 orders of requisition & de-requisition were prior to it, the orders to vacate were null & void & without jurisdiction.
The HC agreed with Dsouza's advocates, Mustafa Doctor & Nigel Quraishy, that "far & wide rights" are given to the state government under the Bombay Land Requisition Act & these would cover earlier requisitions.
It said, "Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that in the present case, the subject matter premises have continued to be under requisition & it cannot be said that the Bombay Land Requisition Act will not apply".
The judges noted the state's "clear stand" through advocate Abhay Patki that unless a requisitioned property is handed back to the owner, the state's obligation is not discharged. They junked the argument that as D S Laud & his legal heirs had continued in possession for a long time, they were tenants. Shown eight rent receipts issued by Dsouza, the judges said, "This is a desperate attempt made by the occupants to cling to a property."
They cited Supreme Court judgments that a few rent receipts issued by the owner of a requisitioned premises is not an admission of a landlord-tenant relationship.
Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
After eight decades, Woman (93) gets back 2 South Mumbai Flats
Picture Source :
