In a remarkable legal development, the Bombay High Court recently issued a significant ruling, ordering the Maharashtra government to return possession of two South Mumbai flats to their rightful owner, a 93-year-old woman. These flats had been requisitioned by the State government back in 1942. This article provides an overview of the court case, analysing the details and implications of this historic ruling for both legal professionals and the general public.
The two flats in question, located in Ruby Mansion, Carnegy Lines, Mumbai, were requisitioned from the owner, Alice D'souza's father, under the Defence of India Rules in 1942. Despite an order issued in 1946 by the Governor of Bombay directing the release and return of possession to the owner, the flats were not handed back. Several subsequent legal proceedings unfolded over the years, leading to the present case.
The division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MM Sathaye, partially allowing the writ petition filed by Alice D'souza, directed the Maharashtra government to provide vacant and peaceful possession of the flats to the owner within eight weeks from the date of the ruling (May 4, 2023). The court held that the de-requisition of the flats was not complete, emphasising the applicability of the Bombay Land Requisition Act in this case. The occupants of the requisitioned flats argued that the orders directing compulsory letting and withdrawing requisition were passed before the enactment of the Bombay Land Requisition Act. However, the court ruled that since possession was never handed back to the owner, the de-requisition process was incomplete, and thus, the act applied to the case. The court further stated that the payment of rent by the occupants did not alter the original legal relationship between them and the owner.
The court acknowledged the owner's right to have control over her own property and deemed it unreasonable to expect her to continue without possession or compensation. The court emphasised that issuing a few rent receipts by the owner did not change the legal relationship or establish a landlord-tenant relationship, particularly when possession was not returned.
This ruling has far-reaching implications, highlighting the importance of upholding property rights and ensuring the rightful ownership of requisitioned properties. It sets a precedent for cases where properties requisitioned decades ago have not been returned to their rightful owners. The ruling underscores the need to rectify such situations, ensuring justice for owners who have been denied their properties for an extended period.
Case title – Alice D’souza v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 925 of 2012)
Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to your situation.
Comments