LILAVATI BAI v. March 5

SINHA J.-By this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution and Petition No. I40 of I955 for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated March 29, 1955, in Appeal No. 63 of I954 confirming that of a single Judge of that Court dated April ~n, l 954, the petitioner challenges the constitu tionality of the Bombay Land Requisition Act (Act XXXIII), I 948, hf'.reinafter referred to as "The Act" and the enforceability of the order dated January, 27, I954, made by the Governor of Bombay in pursuance of s. 6(4) (a) of the Act. The petitioner is the widow of one Dharamdas Chellaram, who was a tenant of the premises in ques- ' tion. The said Dharamdas Chellaram died in Novem I 953, leaving him surviving his widow and a daughter. The petitioner alleged that she had been occupying the premises irf question as a member of her husband's family since I938 and that the tenant afore said had at no material date ceased to occupy the premises. She also alleged that one Narottam n~1s Dharamsey Patel was a mere lodger who vvas oc; 1';iy~ ing a portion of the premises by leave and Jiccn. t of her husand. The said Narottamdas had no intucst 1957 LiilavaJi Bai v. Thr State of Bomba_y Sinha J. Sl1PREME COURT REPORT~ [1957J in the premises in question and had, as a matter of fact, vacated the portion in his occupation some time in the year 1953. On behalf of the State of Bombay, the respondent, it has been stated on affidavit by the Accommodation Officer that it is not a fact that the petitioner resided in the premises in question and that facts were that the said Dharctmdas, the tenant, had vacated the premises in October 19.12 and had handed over possession of the premises to the Narottamdas Dharamsey Patel. Hence it is alleged that it was not a fact that at the time of her husband's death in November 1953 the petitioner was residing in the premises in question. These facts had been st~ted before the High Court also on an affidavit made in opposition to the petitioner's case in the High Court. The petitioner's grievance is that toward the end of January 1954 she found pasted on the outer door of the premises an order dated January 27, 1954 said to have been made by the Governor of Bombay and which is ;aid to be the occasion for her moving the High Court of Bombay for a writ of mandamus against the State of Bombay to refrain from giving eJICct to the aforesaid Order. The Order impugned is in these "No. RI\ I 1) M-13067 Office of the Controller of Accommodation, Jehangir Building, l\fahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay, January, 27, 195+ Order \\"hcreas, on inquiry it is found that the premises spccifif'd below had become vacant in the month of October 1952 ; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powecs conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 6 of the Bombay Lane! Requisition Act, 1948 (Bombay Act XXXIII of 1948) the Gm·ernment of Bombay is pkasecl to requisition the said premises for a public purpo c namely, for housing a Bombay State Govern ment servant. Premises flat ;\o. 3 on the 1st floor of the Building known as Hem Prabha situated at 68, Marine Drive, Bombay. 1957 Lilavati Bai I~ V. The State of Bombay Sinha]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS . By order and in the name of Governor of Bombay." This Order was meant to be served on ( l) Shri Hira bhai H. Patel, admittedly the landlord of the premises, (2) Shri Narottam Dharamsey Patel aforesaid, and (3) Shri Dharamdas Chellaram, who, as already indi cated, was dead at the date the Order was made. The petitioner challenged the validity of the Order of requisition set out above. Her petition was heard by Tendolkar J. who by his judgment dated April 21, 1954, dismissed the same. The petitioner moved this Court for an appropriate writ, direction or order under Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenging the vires of the Act, as also the legal efficacy of the Order impugned. She also filed a petition praying for special leave to appeal from the judgment aforesaid of the Bombay High Court. Both the matters have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment. Before dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is convenient first to set out, in so far as it is necessary, the legislative history of the law impugned and its certain salient features which are relevant for purposes of this case. This Act was passed by the Provincial Legislature of Bombay on April l 1, l 948, on being em powered . by the Governor-General in exercise of powers conferred on him by s. 104 of the Government of India Act, l 935. Initially it was to remain in force until March, 31, 1950. But by the amending Act, Bombay Land Requisition(Amendment) Act, 1950 (Bombay Act No. II of 1950) published on March 28, 1950, its life was extended up to the end of March 1952. By the amending Act, ss. 8-A, 8-B and 9-A were added making substantial changes which need not be set out here, as they do not enter into the controversy. The life of the Act was subsequently extended further, up to the end of December 1958. By the Bombay Land Requisition (Second Amendment) Act, 1950 (Act XXXIX of 1950), the Act was further amended so as to substitute the words "the purpose of the State or any other public purpose" for the words "any purpose" in s. 5 of the Act. This was obviously to satisfy the requirements of Art. 3 l of the • 1957 Li!at1;ti Bai "· The State of Bombay Sinha]. SUPRE~,IE COCRT REPORTS [ 1q· -1 • :JI Cor, sritution. Consequential changes \\ere also me.de in ss. 6 <'nd 7 of the Act. By s. 6 of the amending Act it v:"s proYiciccl that "The amendments made by this ,\ct shall be deemed to ha·:e been and ahrnys to h«YC been ll1'1c:e with effect from the 26th Janua;·y 1950, ..... ". Tines gi\-en rctrospcctiYc operation. The pru\·isions of ss. 5, 6 and the amc,,dmcnts aforesaid I 3 <eftcr portions not necessary for our purpose) arc in terms : - 2mendrnent was \omitting ".'· ( 1) If in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or expedient so to do, the State GoYern ment may by order in writing requisition any land for puij, ose of the State or 01ry other jJUb/ic jm1j1osc : Provided that no building or part thereof wherein the O\\ner, the lanc:jord or the tenant, as the case may be, has actually resided for a continuous periorl of six months immediately preceding the date of the order shall be requisitioned under this section. ( 2) Where any building or pan thereof is to be requisitioned under sub-section (r), the State GO\ern mcnt shall make such enquiry as it deems fit and make a declaration in the order or requisition that the owner, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, has not actually resided therein for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the order and such declaration shall lie conclusive evidnzce the owner, landlord or tenant has not so resided.

#6. ( 1) If any premises situate in an area specified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, are vacant on the elate of such notification and wherever any such premises are vacant or become yacant after such date by reason of the landlord, the tenant or the wb-tenanL as the case may be, ceasing to occupy the premises or by reason of the release of th" premise' from requisition or by reason of the premises bf'ing nc\\·ly erected or reconstructed or for any other reason the l;mdlorcl of such premises shall give intima tion thereof in the prescribed form to an officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. S.C.R. :c>UPRE~lE COURT REPORTS (4) \Vhether or not an intimation µnclcr suL-section ( 1) is given and notwithsta11ding anything contained in section 5, the State Government may by order in writing -- (a) i·cquisitiun tlie premises for the purpose ufthe State or any other public purpose and may use or deal with the premises for any such purpose in such manner as rnJy appear to it to be expedient, or 1957 Li/a,,ali Bai v. The State qf Bombay Sinha]. Provided that where an rm\cr is to be made under clause (a) ffquisitioninu; the premises in respect of which no intimation is gin'.ll by the landlord, the State GoYCrnment shall make such inquiry as it deems fit and make a declaration in the order that the premises were vacant or had become vacant, on or after the date referred to in sub-section ( 1) and such declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the premises were or had so become vacant : Explanation-For the purposes of this section,- ( a) premises which art". in the occupatir:ll of the landlord, the tenant or the sub-tenant, as tl;c case may be, shall be decm1'.d to be or become vacant when :,11ch landlord ceases to be in occupation or when such tenant or sub-tenant ceases to be in occupation upon termination of his tenancy, eviction, assignment or transfer in anv other manner of hi~ interest in the premises or otherwise, not withstanding any instrument or occupation by any other person prior to the date when wch landlord, tenant or sub-tenant so ceases to be in occupation; 1 3. ( 1) Every order made under ss. 5, 6, 7, 8-A or 8-B or sub-section ( 7) of section g or section 12 shall ( a) if it is an order of a general nature or affecting the manner a cb:,s of persons, be published pm:cribecl by rules made in this behalf ; (b) if it is an order affecting an individual, corpo ration, or firm, be served in the manner provided for the service of a summons in Ruic 2 of Order XXIX or Rule 3 of Order XXX, as the case may be, in the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; 1957 Lilavati Bai V, I'k State of Bombay Sinha]. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 95 7) (c) ifit is an order affecting an individual person other than a corporation or firm, be served on the person·- (i) personally, by cleliverillg or tendering to him the order, or \;i) by post, or (iii) where the person cannot be found, by leaving an authentic copy of the order with some adult male member of his family or by affixing such copy to some conspicuous ;Jart of the premises in which he is k:iown to ha\'e last resided or carried on business or worked fo~ g-ain. (2) \\'here a question arises whether a person \\'aS duly informed of an order made in pursuance of sec :1, 6, 7, 8-A or 8-B or, sub-section (7) of section 9 or section 1 2 compliance with the requirements of sub section i 1) shall be conclusi11e proof that he was so informed ; but failure to con·1ply with the said require ments shal! not preclude proof by other means that he was so informed, or affect th~ validity of the order. ............................ ". (Gnderlining ours). At the outset it is neccss;,ry to state that the ma:n grouncls of attar,k against the constitutionality of the Act based on such fundamental rights ;ls are recognised by Ans. 19!1)([) and 31 (2) of the Constitution must be o\·erruled in view of the decision of the C01•stitution Bench r,f this Court in State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji ('). In that case this Court upheld the validity of the Act with reference to the provisions a;·ticles aforesaid of the Constitution. But the learned counsel for the netitioner comended that he attacked the 1'ircs of the Act on grounds other than those which had hccn speciiically dealt with by this Court in the \Ve now proceed to deal with clec; sion jus.t referred to. those fresh grounds on their merits. It was contended the Act became invalid on January 26, 1950 inasmuch as it was in conflict with Art. 3r(2) of the Constitution. The Act was, therefore, as good as dead by the time Act II of 1 950 extending the life of the Act was enacted as aforesaid. The Act being void, its extension by Act II of 1950 was equally void. (1) fI93:J] Is. c. R. 777. 1957 Li/avati Bai v. The State of Bombay Sinha]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS Similarly, it was further argued that the amendments effected by the amending Act II of 1950 and Act XXXIX of 1950 required the assent of the President and that as admittedly no such assent had been given, they had no effect as provided in Art. 3 l ( 3) of Constitution. This chain of submissions is founded on the admitted non-compliance with the requirements of It has not been contended that the Act Art. 3 l (3). It when passed on April l l, r 948, was not good law. is also clear that the Act is not covered by the provi sions of cl. (6) of Art. 3 I. The Acr is thus covered by the saving clause, cl. 5(a), being an existing law other than a law to which the provisiom of cl. (6) apply. The Act, therefore, would be valid evefl if the provisions of cl. ( 2) of Art. 3 l are not in terms fully satisfied, in so far as the Act did not before its amendment bv Act XXXIX of r950 contain the expression "for a public purpose". As already pointed out, this Court in the case cf T!te State of Bombay v. Blzanji Munji (1 ) has laid it down that the Act was 11ot invalid even after the commencement of the Constitution simply because it is not provided in express terms that the acquisition or requisition had to be for a public purpose, provided that from the whole tenor and intendment of the Act it could be gathered that the requisition was for a public purpo·,e, and for the benefit of the community at large. The amending Act only made explicit what had been left to be gathered from the whole tenor of the Act, as pointed out by this Court in the case cited above. The argument that the amending Acts, II of 1950 and XXXIX of 1950, required the assent of the President under cl. (3) of Art. 3 l has, therefore, no force. Act II of 1950, in so far :rs it affects the present con troversy, only extended the life of the Act by two years and Act XXXIX of 1950 only made explicit what was not so in the Act as originally passed, and are not such laws as come within the purview of cl. (3) of Art. 31 inasmuch as those Act3 are merely an extension or ex planatory of the substantive Act which is an existing law within the meaning of the Constitution. Clause (3} 11) [1955] 1 S. C.R. 777. 1957 Li!avati Bai V. The State of Bomhqy Sinha]. SUPREME COURT KEPORTS law made by of Art. 3 r in terms applies to a legislature of a State, after the commencement of the Constitution ; whereas the Act had been passed in its substantive form in April I 948. Hence, there is no difficulty in holding that the Act which was good law before the commencement of the Constitution did not become void under Art. I 3 of the Constitution, because there was nothing in the Act which was inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. If the Act ~rns good law afte'!" the commencement of the Constitution, it follows that the amendments aforesaid made in 1950, were eqnally good law, even though the assent of the President had not been obtained. Secondly, the decision of this Court in The State of Bombay v. Bhanji Mv11ji (') (snpra) itself has ruled to the contrary with reference to the provisions of Art. 31 (2) . V\'e cannot, therefore, go back upon our decision in the case aforesaid. On these considerations the pc•i tion under Art. 32 of the Constitution must fail on the ground that no fundamental rights of the petitioner as would entitle her to seek redress from this Court, h~.,·c been contravened. It remains to consider the other arguments advance! on behalf of the petitioner which have a bearing on the petition for special leave to appeal from the judgement of the Bombay High Court. It has been contended that s;. 5 and 6 of the Act quoted above and under lined by us have made certain matters conclusive, so that the High Court or even this Court could not go behind the order of the State Government holding that the tenant had not resided in the premises for a continuous period of six months immediately precerling the date of the order (s. 5), or that the premises had become vacant in the month of October 19.')2, as stated in the Order impugned in thie case. It is contended that the legislature had, by making those provisions rendering those matters conclusively proved, impaired the powers of the High Court under Art. 226 and of this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Anotl,~r branch of the argument is that the declaration of facl ,-.hich has vacancy is dependent upon a collateral (1) [19:,51 1 $.C.R. iii· 1957 Lilavati Bai v. The State ef Bombay Sinha]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 73 1 to be found by the Government on such enquiry as it may deem fit and proper and its conclusion ori such a collateral fact could not be placed by the Act beyond scrutiny by the High Court or by this Court. In this connection it was also argued that on the question of vacancy the finding of the State Government may be conclusive on the "factual aspect" but not on the In other words, it was "legal aspect" of the matter. contended that it was still open to the courts to find whether the facts found constituted in law "vacancy" as defined in the Act. In this connection strong reliance was placed on the following observations of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Hubli Eiectricity Co Ltd. v. Province ef Bombay (1) at pages 65 and 66 :-- "The question what obligations are imposed on licensees by or under the Act is a question of law. Their Lordships do not read the section as making the government the arbiter on the construction of the Act or as to the obligations it imposes. Doubtless the government must, in expressing an opinion for the purpose of the section, also entertain a view as to the question of law. But its view on law is not decisive. If in arriving at a conclusion it appeared that the government had given effect to a wrong apprehension of the obligations imposed on the licensee by or under the Act the result would be that the Government had not expressed such an opinion as is referred to in the section." There are several answers to this contention. In the first place, it is well settled that observations made with reference to the construction of one statute cannot be appHed with reference to the provisions of another stamte which is not in pari materia with the statute which forms the subject matter of the previous decision. The .Judicial Committee was dealing with the provi sions of s. 4 (I) of the Indian Electricity Act, I 910, which did not contain the words "conclusive evidence" or any words to that effect. That decision of the Judicial Committee, if it can at all be applied to the Act now before us, is against the petitioner in so far as (1) [1948] L. R. 76 I. A. 57. 1957 Lilavati Bai v. T~ Stat~ of Bombay Si.ma]. 732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 195 7] it has construed the words "opinion of the Provincial Government". Those words or words of similar import In the words of the appear in the beginning of s. 5. Judicial Committee, those words signify the subjective opinion of tht; Government and not an opinion subject to objective tests. The observations quoted above only show that on a proper construction of the provisions of the statute then before the Judicial Committee, the opi nion of the Government, if it was made non-justiciable, was confined to the question of whether there Lad been a wilful and unreasonably prolonged default, but did not cover the question of the opinion of Govern ment relating to the obligations imposed by the statute on the licensee, by or under the Act. Hence those observations are absolutely of no assistance to the petitioner on. the question of the full implication of the rule making certain matters "conclusive evidence" under the provisions of ss. 5 and 6 of the Act. This question appears to ha\·e been canvassed in a number In the case of of cases in the High Court of Bombay. ]agatchandra v. Bomba)' Province (1) TGndolkar J. had ruled that the declaration made by the Government shall be "conclusive evidence with regard to all facts involved in the determination of v.1cancy but that it was not conclusive with regard to the iafcrences to be drawn from or the lcg't! conseque:1ces of such focts. The correctness of that proposition was questioned in anothc:r case before another learned J u<lge of that Court, Shah J., who referred it to be determined b,· a larger Bench. Chagla C. J. and Gajcndragadkar J. (now one of us) examined that question in some detail and O\·erruled the decision of Tendolkar J. (Vide 1Hohsinali Mohomed Ali v. The State of Bomba_y(')). The Bombay High Court in the last r1entioned case held that on a declaration being made by the State Government that there "·as a vacancy, it was conclusive both as t0 the facts and the constituent elements of "vacancv". ;tS understood under the Act. The High Court reiie,'l in this connection on the observations of the Judicial (1) ,.\.LR. 1950 Il•Jn1. 144. (2) [1951] 53 Boin.L.H. ~.J.; :\.I.R. :951 Born. 303. Lilavati Bai ~. The Stale OJ Bombay Sinha]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 733 Committee of the Privy Council in Moosa Goo/am Arif! v. Ebrahim· Goolam Ariff(1) and of Lord Cairns in Peel's ), and of Lord Parker of. Waddington in Bowan v. Secular Society Ltd. (3). case( 2 In this connection the learned counsel for the peti tioner also pressed in aid of his agrument the well known distinction between the jurisdiction of a court or authority to decide a certain fact as one of the issues in the controversy and certain collateral facts on which the jurisdiction to determine the controversy could arise. It was argued that the finding on the question of vacancy by the State Government was a "jurisdic tional fact" in the sense that unless it was found that there was a vacancy, the jurisdiction of the State Government to make the declaration and to requisition the premises could not arise. This aspect of matter has been considered by this Court in the case of Rai Brij Raj Krishna v. S. K. Shaw & Brutlzers (4 ). That case concerned the construction of the p!'ovi-sions sion .. of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (Bihar Act III) of 190· This Court held that the Controller had been vested with the jurisdiction to determine all questions including the question whether or not there was non-payment of rent and on finding that there was default in the payment of rent, with the jurisdiction to order eviction of the tenant. The finding of the question of default was not a jurisdic tional finding ~n the sense in which learned counsel for the petitioner asks us to hold with reference to the finding of the State Government in this case that there has been '.l vacancy. In the reported case this Court held further that even if the Controller had in the wrongly decided payment of rent, his effective order on the question of eviction could not be challenged in a court of law. Mr. Justice Fazl Ali delivering the judgment of the court made reference to the well known observations of Lord Esher, M.R. in the case of Queen v. Commis tax(5) and to sioners for Special Purposes of the Income the question of defatilt (1) [1912] L.R. 39 I.A. 237 (2) [18G7J L.R. 2 Ch. App. 674. (3) [1917] A.C 406. (4) [:951] S.C.R. 145. (5) [1888] 21 Q.B.D. 313, 319. ,. ' • 1957 Lilavati Bai v. TJ,e State qf Bombay Sinha]. 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 195 7 J the Court, decision was the observations of the Privy Council in the case of the Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Willan('). After referring to those observations and to the provisions of the statute then before this Court held that the Act empowered the Controller alone to decide whether or not there was non-payment of rent and essential r r. his order for eviction of the tenant under s. That decision of the Controller, the Court further held, could not be challenged in a court of law. The decision of this Court just referred to is an apt illustration of the rule which applies with equal force to the provisions of the Act now before us. The Act has made a specific provision to the effect that the determination on the questions referred to in ss. 5 and the State Government shall be 6 of the Act by conclusive evidence of the declaration so made. But that does not mean that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 or of this Court under Art. 32 or In a proper case the on appeal has been impaired. High Court or this Court in the exercise of its special jurisdiction under the Constitution has the power to determine how far the provisions of the statute have the special or have not been complied with. But powers aforesaid of this Court or of the High Court cannot extend to reopening a finding by the State Government under s. 5 of the Act that the tenant has not actually resided in the premises for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the elate of the order or under s. 6 that the premises had become vacant at about the order impugned. Those are not collateral matters which could on proper evidence be reopened by the courts of law. The legislature in its wisdom has maclc those declarations conclusive and it is not for this Court to question that wisdom. indicated As an offshoot of the agrument that we have just been examining it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that Explanation :a) to s. 6 quoted above contemplates a vacancy when a tenant (omitting other words not necessary) "Ceases to be in occupation upon (1) [1H-;+} 5 l'.C: ·1-17·4-t-3 1957 Lilavati Bai v. The State of Bombay Sinha]. S.C.R SUPREME COURT REPORTS 735 termination of his tenancy, eviction, or assignment or transfer in any other manner of his interest in the premises or otherwise". The argument proceeds further to the effect that in the instant case admittedly there was no termination, eviction, assignment or transfer and that the words "or otherwise" must be construed as ejusdem generis with the words imme diately preceding them ; and that therefore on the facts as admitted even in the affidavit filed on behalf of the In the Government there was in law no vacancy. fir$t place, as already indicated, we cannot go behind the declaration made by the Government that there In the second place, the rule of ejusdem v1·as a vacancy. generis sought to be pressed in aid of the petitioner can possibly have no application. The legislature has been cautious and thorough-going enough to bar all avenues of escape by using the words "or otherwise". Those words arc not words of limitation but of extension so as to cover all pos~ible ways in which a vacancy may occur. Generally speaking, a tenant's occupation of his premises ceases when his tenancy is terminated by acts of parties or by operation of law or by eviction by the landlord or by assignment or transfer of the tellant's interest. But the legislature, when it used the words "or otherwise", apparently intended to cover other cases which may not come within tenant's occupation has example, a case where ceased as a result of trespass by a third party. The frgislature, intended to cover all lJo;;sible cases of vacancy occurring due to any reasons whatsoever. Hence, far those words ejusdem generis with the preceding clauses of the explanation, the legislature used those words in an all inclusive sense. No decided case of any court, holding that the words "or otherwise" have ever been used in the sense contended for on behalf of the petitioner, has been brought to our notice. the meanint, of the preceding clauses, in our opinion, from using On the other hand, by way of illustration of decisions to the contrary may be cited the case of Skinner & Co. v. Shew & Co. ('). In that case the Court of Appeal [1) [1893] 1 Ch. D .. p3. 2-99 s. c. I./59 1957 Lilavati Bai v. The State of Bomba)' Sinha], SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1957] had to consider the words of s. 32 of the Patents, Designs & Trade Marks Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Viet. c.57), to the following effect : - "\\There any person claiming to be the patentee of . d any invention, by circulars, advertisements or other wise threatens any other person with any ,, procee mgs ............... . Their Lordships repelled the contention that the words "or otherwise" occurring in that section had to be read ejusdem generis with "circulars", and "advertisements". They observed that by so doing they will be cutting down the intendment of the provisions of the statute when clearly the words "or otherwise" had been used with a contrary intention. The rule of ejusdem generis is intended to be applied where general words have been used following particular and specific words of the same nature on the established rule of construction that the legislature presumed to use the general words in a restricted sense; that is to say, as belonging to the same genus as the particular and specific words. Such a restricted meaning has to be given to words of general import only where the context of the whole scheme of legislation requires it. But where context and the object and mischief of the enactment do not require such restricted meaning to be attached to words of general import, it becomes the duty of the courts to give those words their plain and ordinary In our opinion, in the context of the object meaning. and mischief of the enactment there is no room for the application of the rule of ejusdem generis. Hence it follows that the vacancy as declared by the order impugned in this case, even though it may not be covered by the specific words used, is certainly covered by the legal import of the words "or otherwise". The only other contention which remains to be dealt with is that the order impugned in this case is not enforceable because it was directed petitioner's husband, who was dead at the date of the order, besides the other two persons indicated in it who were not concerned with the premises. In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention either. An order like the one passed under s. 6(4) (a) of the Act against 1957 Li/1JDaJi Bai v. TM Stale ef Bombay Sinha]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 737 that in so far as that the tenant had ceased to be is not in the nature of an order in judicial proceedings between the Government on the one hand and other parties named. If the proceedings were intended by the sense of judicial or quasi-judicial the Act in proceedings between named parties, it may have been legitimately argued that an order passed against a dead man is a complete nullity. But the order proceeds on the basis occupation of the premises in October 1952, apparently by reason of the fact that he had handed over posses sion of the premise~ to the so called "lodger" or "paying guest". Admittedly the petitioner's husband died after October 1952. The occupation by the said Narottamdas Dharamsey Patel was in the nature of an unauthorised occupation. The fact that the peti tioner's husband was dead on the date of the order impugned has only this effect mentions his name as one of the persons to be served under s. I 3 of the Act should be erased from the order. But even so, it does not affect the enforceability of the same. S. 13 lays down the different modes of service of an order passed under the Act according as the order is of a general nature or affecting a class of persons or an individual, corporation or firm. We are here concerned with the ca5e of an individual and the section lays down that it can be served either personally by delivering or tendering the order to him or by post or where he cannot be found, by affixing a' copy of the order to some conspicuous part of the premises which he is known to have last As the petitioner's husband had died before the date of the order impugned, it could affect only the so called "lodger" who had been, on occupation of the premises after October I 952. He has not made any complaint about non-service. The only other person who could be affected by the order, if at all, is the petitioner herself. She has admitted that she came to know of the order in questiou at about the time it had been made, because she found a copy of the order affixed at the outer door of the premises. Thus admittedly, the petitioner had timely notice of the findings, resided. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1957 Lilai'ali Baj v. Tk Stole ef llomba; Sin.ha J~ the order impugned. Hence in the instant case there is no need to apply the rule of conclusive proof as laid dmrn in sub-s.(2) of s. 13. as the concluding words of the section have provided, any irregularity or failure to comply with the requirements of the section cannot "affect the validity of the order". In any event, As all the g,rounds urged in support of the petitions fail, they are dismissed with costs, one set. Petitions dismissed. 1957 March 7. SOHANLAL v. THE UNION OF INDIA ( BHAGWATI, jAGANNADHADAs, ]AFER MENON and J. L. KAPUR JJ.) IMAM, Gov1NDA Jl'rit ~f mandamus-Disputed qulstions of fact and !aw Disf,11!e rrgarding tit/e-T11hether ronrf£1' by U!~Y of writ approj1riate to private iu_dividual-~S'tate illegally evicting -l1.litt! writ can issue jJtrso11 fronl house-.A1wther person takzug possession bona fide u:ith !:11ou1/edge qf illegal eviction-r11hether ivrit can t"ssue against such j;enon-Consti!ution ~f India, Art. 226 . .J, a displaced person, "'·as.found /1ri1nafacie entitled to allot ment of~. house and the Accomn1od~tion Officer moved his family into the house on I\1ay 10, 1952, but no letter of allotment ,\·as issued to him. Later, ,\·hen certain facts became knc\vn which in tht" opinion of the Union of India disentitlcd J to the allotment, he "·as informf'"<l that the house could not be allotted to him. J \vas c,·icted fr01n the house on September 27, 1952, ,...,.·ith out being gi,·en 1 s days notice as reqnircd hy s. 3 of the Public Premise-; Eviction Act (XXVII of i950). ~fhe house \Vas then allotted to S and he \\·as given possession on October 3, 1952. J filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court. The High Court ordered the Union of India and also S to restore possession of the house to J. S appealed. He!d, that the High Court erred in issuing the writ of .111a1;da1nus. There ,\·as a secious dispute on questions of fact bet\veen the paTties and also 'vhether J had acquired any title to the property in dispute. Proceedings by \vay of a \\Tit \\'ere not approp1iate in ;"J. case \\·here the decision of the Cou;:t \Yould amount to a decree declaring a party's title and ordering restoration of poss:!s sl.nn. The proper remedy in such a case is by \\'ay 'of a title suit in 'A Civil (:011rt. The alternati\-e rem~dy of obtaining relief by a