1968 PLP 307 (SCMR)

FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-This appeal, by special leave, arises out of proceedings taken by the respondent before the Rent Controller under the East Pakistan Tenancy Rent Control Ordinance, 1963, for fixation of standard rent in respect of certain premises which had been requisitioned by the Province of East Pakistan under the East Bengal Requisition of Property Ordinance, 1947 (Ordinance V of 1947). The facts which are not in dispute may be shortly stated. Municipal holding No. 142 which is a two-storied building in the town of Rajshahi was requisitioned under section 4 of the above Ordinance on 23-9-47 and the Government took possession of it on 9-10-47 and thereafter allotted it to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rajshahi. By agreement between the Government and the owner, monthly compensation was assessed at Rs. 50 and by a subsequent agreement it was raised to Rs.

60. On 12-3-64, the owner filed a petition under section 15(1) of the East Pakistan Rent Control Ordinance, 1963, for fixation of a standard rent for the said premises. Province of East Pakistan opposed the application on the ground that the Rent Control Ordinance was not applicable to requisition premises and hence the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction _ to entertain a proceeding in respect of the said premises. 'The Rent Controller rejected this contention and fixed Rs. 312.56 as stan4ard rent. His decision was reversed by the District Judge whose, Judgment was, however, set aside by the High Court in revision. =The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to fix standard rent of the requisitioned premises. As substantial question of interpretation of the two relevant laws arose in this case, this Court granted special leave to appeal to the Province of East Pakistan. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the provisions of the Rent Control Ordinance would not be applicable to a requisitioned property. At the outset we may mention that the East Bengal Requisi tion of Property Ordinance, 1947, is now superseded by the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948, which consolidates the law on the subject. This Act of 1948 in its preamble recites that this is "An Act to provide for special measures for (emergency) requisition of property in connection with the administration and development of East Pakistan." Section 7 deals with the ascertainment of quantum of compensation payable to the person interested in the requisitioned property. It makes provision for a private agreement on the subject of compensation and, failing that the compensation to be 400-mined by an arbitrator. Proviso (iii) to section 7 says:- "(iii) in awarding compensation for the requisition of any immovable property to which the provisions of the East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1961, or any other law for the time being in force, for the control of house-rent, apply, the arbitrator shall have regard to those provisions, so that the compensations awarded may not exceed the amount of rent allowable in respect of such property under those provisions;" Section 7-A(2) provides that if the owner feels dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the arbitrator he can bring a civil suit for the determination of the dispute within the time provided in the proviso of the said subsection. Section 8-A lays down that on the property being released from requisition the allottee would become a tenant in respect of that property and that the East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Ordinance would apply to such a tenancy. Section 14-A bars the jurisdiction of the Court in these terms:- "14-A. Except as expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall, entertain any suit or application against any order passed or any action take n under this Act and all suits and appeals pending in any such Court against any order passed or any action taken under this Act shall abate with effect from the date of coming into force of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property (Amendment) Ordinance, 1963". From the above it is clear that on requisition, for the period, the requisitioning authority enters into possession of the property, the rights of all other persons are superseded and such persons as B are affected by the requisition are only entitled to the compensation to be determined in the manner laid down in the Act. The scheme of the compensation also militates against a supposed right of the owner to initiate a proceeding under the Rent Control Ordinance. This view also finds support from the decisions of this Court in The Chandpur Mills Ltd. v. The District Magistrate Tippera and another (P L D 1958 S C 267) and Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Aziz Chowdhury and others (P L D 1960 S C 319). Furthermore, subsection (2) of section 8-A in clear terms says that: "the allottee in possession of such property shall, on and from the date of its release from requisition, be deemed to be a tenant from month to month under the person or persons who but for the provision of subsection (I) would have been entitled to restoration of actual possession thereof under subsection (I) of section 8, at a rental equivalent to the amount of monthly compensation which, prior to the release of that property, was payable by him for it, or if that rent be not receipt able to either party to the aforesaid tenancy, at such standard rent as may be admissible or fixed under the provisions of the East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1961 or any other similar law for the time being in force." Then, subsection (4) says:- "(4). The East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Ordinance, 1961, or any other similar law for the time being in force so far as it is applicable, shall apply to the tenancy referred to in subsection (2)." The above lends strong support to the view that the rent control legislation will have no application to property under requisition. The legal position of the Government vis-a-vis a person whose property is under requisition may therefore be stated thus No question of tenancy, either contractual or statutory arises between the Government and the owner of the property. In exercise of its statutory power the Government takes possession of the requisitioned property and it is, therefore, required to pay compensation for such possession. One of the ways for assessing the compensation may be to determine what the owner would have received under the East Pakistan Rent Control Ordinance it was let out to a tenant, but that would not create relationship of landlord and tenant between the Government and the owner. In the instant case the Government took possession of the requisitioned property and thereafter compensation was assessed by agreement under subsection (a) of section 7 of the Act. The building in question is still under requisition. Hence, it is obvious that the rent control legislation would not be attracted to such a case. In view of the clear provisions of the Act the learned counsel for the respondent has found it difficult to support the judgment of the High Court. He has, however, pointed out that a nominal compensation has been awarded for the requisitioned property. No doubt, the compensation must be tested by the loss to the owner and in estimating the loss it would be legitimate to consider what should be the far compensation for the premises. It is also true that the compensation which the respondent is receiving under the agreement cannot be considered as a fair and reasonable compensation. His remedy however, lies under clause 6 of the agreement which is in these terms:- "(6) Should any dispute or difference arise out of or concerning the subject-matter of the presents or any Government Clause or thing therein contained or otherwise arising out of the requisition aforesaid the same shall be referred to An Arbitrator to be appointed by the Government and the decision of such Arbitrator shall be conclusive and binding on the parties here to the provision of the Arbitration Act, 1940 shall apply to such arbitration." For these reasons we would set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, and restore that of the District Judge. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal accepted.