Judgment 1. THE petitioner's case in this application is as follows: the petitioner is the owner of premises, 13b, Bompus Road, Calcutta. The premises is divided into flats and the petitioner himself resides in one of the flats on the first floor. In the northern flat of the first floor, one Subodh Sarkar was a monthly tenant. The said Subodh Sarkar failed and neglected to pay rent far six months within a period of eighteen months. Thereupon, the petitioner duly determined the tenancy and filed a suit for ejectment in the Court of the First Munsiff at Alipur being Title Suit No. 168 of 1952. Subodh Sarkar contested the said suit, but on or about August 31, 1955 the suit was decreed and he was given four months' time to vacate the flat. 'since he did not vacate the flat within the time aforesaid, on or about June 28, 1956 the petitioner obtained an order in execution of the decree for police help for evicting Sarkar from the said flat. 2. THE petitioner states that on June 29, 1956 he left his home in the morning for his office and when he returned home at about 5-30 p. m., he was told by his daughter-in-law that the said Subodh Sarkar had vacated the premises, that is to say, the flat in his possession, and had given possession of it to one Mrs. Sikharani Sen Gupta. The petitioner saw Mrs. Sen Gupta and her husband, whereupon he was informed that the flat had been requisitioned by the Government on June 29, 1956 and on the same day possession had been made over to Mrs. Sen Gupta by Subodh Sarkar. The petitioner further states that upon enquiry he discovered that on June 29, 1956 a notice was issued signed by one Mr. P. Dutt, Assistant Secretary to the State of West Bengal and the First Land Acquisition Collector, whereby the said northern fiat on the first floor of the said premises 13b Bompus Road was requisitioned and the petitioner was ordered to place the flat at the disposal of the respondent the First Land Acquisition Collector, on and from 2-30 p. m. of the same day, that is to say, June 29, 1956. In this application it is this order of requisition that is challenged. In this application it is this order of requisition that is challenged. This Rule was issued on July 26, 1956 upon the respondents to show cause why an order should not be made and a writ in the nature of mandamus issued, calling upon the respondents to withdraw the said order of requisition, dated June 29, 1956 or why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued quashing the said order and for other reliefs. 3. IN the application as it was framed originally, only the First Land Acquisition Collector and the State of West Bengal were made parties. Mrs. Sikha Sen Gupta wrongly described. as Sikharani Sen Gupta, although she affirmed an affidavit in support of the respondent, had not been made a party. Subsequently, however, the petitioner made her a party and she appeared and contested the application. At the final hearing, however, the court was informed by Mr. Sen appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that in the meantime Mrs. Sen Gupta had left the flat and another tenant had come into possession. This new tenant was in Government employ and particulars have been furnished to the petitioner. Mr. Ghose appearing on behalf of the petitioner says, however, that in the circumstances it was not necessary for him to make the person in actual possession as a party respondent. He is prepared to take the risk of my declaring that whatever order I make in this application will not be binding on the new tenant. I shall revert to this aspect of the case later on. 4. MR. Ghose appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken three points in support of his application: (1) That the order of requisition was not served on the petitioner who is the owner of the requisitioned premises, as required by law. It is consequently bad. (2) That the order of requisition is invalid inasmuch as there is no public purpose to support a compulsory requisition under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1947. (3) That the requisition is mala-fide and for that reason should be quashed or set aside. It is consequently bad. (2) That the order of requisition is invalid inasmuch as there is no public purpose to support a compulsory requisition under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1947. (3) That the requisition is mala-fide and for that reason should be quashed or set aside. So far as point No. 1 is concerned, the relevant rule is respect of the service of a requisition order is to be found in the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Rules, 1947 as amended by Notification No. 13692 dated 16th December, 1950, published in the Calcutta Gazette, dated 14th December, 1950. As I have had considerable difficulty in finding this rule, I set it out below for the sake of convenience. 3 (1) "save as provided in sub-rule (2), an order under subsection (1) or sub-section (3) of section 3 shall be served by tendering and delivering a copy thereof to the person on whom the order is served. As I have had considerable difficulty in finding this rule, I set it out below for the sake of convenience. 3 (1) "save as provided in sub-rule (2), an order under subsection (1) or sub-section (3) of section 3 shall be served by tendering and delivering a copy thereof to the person on whom the order is served. (2) Where (a) a person on whom a copy of the order to be served is tendered under sub-rule (1) refuses to accept delivery thereof, the order may be served by affixing a copy thereof on the outer door or some conspicuous part of the premises in which such person ordinarily resides or carries on business or by sending the same by registered post with acknowledgment due or any other manner as enumerated in clause (b) of this sub-rule; (b) If the person on whom the order is to be served cannot be found or is not readily traceable and the order cannot be otherwise served without undue delay, the order may be served on any adult male member of the family of such person residing with him, and, if no such adult male member can be found, or if such member refuses to accept delivery thereof, the order may be served by affixing a copy there of on the outer door or some conspicuous part of the house in which the person therein named ordinarily dwells or carries on business; or by publishing the order in the Calcutta Gazette, and if, practicable, by affixing a copy thereof on the outer door or some conspicuous part of the premises to which it relates; or by affixing a copy thereof on the Notice Board in the office of the Collector, and, if practicable, also on the outer door or some conspicuous part of the premises to which it relates, as the Collector may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; (c. . . . " under section 8 of the West-Bengal Premises Requisitioning and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "act"), whenever it appears to the State Government that any premises in any locality are needed or are likely to be needed for any public purpose, it may, by order, in writing requisition such premises. . . " under section 8 of the West-Bengal Premises Requisitioning and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "act"), whenever it appears to the State Government that any premises in any locality are needed or are likely to be needed for any public purpose, it may, by order, in writing requisition such premises. Sub-section (2) of section 3 lays down that an order of requisition shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed on the landlord, and where it relates to a premises let out to tenants, also on such tenant. It is, therefore, clear that service of the order on the owner is compulsory. As to the manner prescribed under the Rules, I have already set it out above. So far as evidence of service before me is concerned I must mention that I have not been supplied with the best evidence. There is no affidavit by the persons who effected the service. The matter is dealt with in the affidavit of Byomkesh Sen Gupta the First Land Acquisition Collector affirmed on August 28, 1956 in paragraph 7. The relevant part thereof is as follows: "i further state that the said Niharranjan Sarkar accepted service of the notice and acknowledged receipt therefor. The petitioner was not found in the premises and as nobody agreed to accept service thereof on behalf of the petitioner the same was duly served by affixing the same on the said premises requisitioned in accordance with the provisions of the rules framed under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1947 in the presence of Sri C. Mukerji, an enquiring officer attached to this office. After taking over possession of the said premises from the said Niharranjan Sarkar, the possession of the requisitioned premises was made over to the allotted Sm. Sikharani Sen Gupta on the same day who had been asked to be present to accept possession. " 5. I might mention here that it is the case of the respondent that at the time of the requisition, that is to say, on June 29, 1956 one Niharranjan Sarkar was in possession of the flat in question and not Subodh Sarkar. It is net at all clear how Niharanjan Sarkar came to be in possession. " 5. I might mention here that it is the case of the respondent that at the time of the requisition, that is to say, on June 29, 1956 one Niharranjan Sarkar was in possession of the flat in question and not Subodh Sarkar. It is net at all clear how Niharanjan Sarkar came to be in possession. It has been a matter of comment that neither the serving peon nor the said Sri C. Mukerji who was stated to be present on the occasion, has filed any affidavit before me, although the facts relating to the service have been strongly disputed. I have therefore to take the statements made in the paragraph set out above as the admitted facts relating to the service of the order of requisition. 6. AS I have stated above, the whole premises belongs to the petitioner. The premises is divided into flats and the petitioner himself resides in one of the first floor flats and another flat on the same floor is the flat in dispute. If the service had been made according to the rules, then it is quite clear that Rule 3 (2) (a) does not apply because the serving peon never met the petitioner. Obviously, what applies is Rule 3 (2) (b. That rule lays down that if a person who is to be served is not found or is not readily traceable or if it cannot be otherwise served without undue delay, then firstly it must be served or can be served on any adult male member residing with the landlord but if no such person can be found, or if he refuses to accept delivery thereof, then service may be made by affixing it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the landlord ordinarily dwells or carries on business. There is a further alternative, of course, of publishing the order in the Calcutta Gazette and certain other procedures are laid down in the Rules quoted above. In this ease, no attempt was made to trace the landlord. His flat being almost next door to the flat in question, it would have been the easiest thing to go and inquire there as to his whereabouts, or to find out whether there was any adult male member ready to accept service. Nothing whatever was done. Then again the notice was served by affixation. His flat being almost next door to the flat in question, it would have been the easiest thing to go and inquire there as to his whereabouts, or to find out whether there was any adult male member ready to accept service. Nothing whatever was done. Then again the notice was served by affixation. This could only be done on the outer door or some conspicuous part of the house in which the person ordinarily dwells or carries on business. In this case it would be the flat occupied by the petitioner. What was done was that the notice was affixed on the flat requisitioned. This is clearly stated in the above mentioned paragraph occurring in the affidavit of the First Land Acquisition Collector. He says that it was served "by affixing the same on. the said premises requisitioned." I could even have understood if the notice was served on the front door of the main entrance. Service by affixation on the requisitioned flat is no service on the landlord who does not reside or carry on business therein. Therefore, in my opinion, there has been no valid service in accordance with law upon the petitioner as required under section 3 of the Act. Upon this a very pertinent question arises. If the notice of requisition has not been served upon the owner, as it must be served according to the Act, does it make the service bad or does it make the order of requisition bad ? according to Mr. Ghose, the order of requisition itself is vitiated and he has referred me to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of the learned Chief Justice and S. R. Das Gupta, J. (as he then was) in Appeal No. 159 of 1951 [Union of India v. Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd (1)] being an unreported judgment, dated September 8, 1954. This was a case of requisition and acquisition of jute and hessian, made under the Defence of India Rules by the Central Government. One of the issues there was as to whether the order of requisition was validly served and, if not, what was the effect thereof ? This was a case of requisition and acquisition of jute and hessian, made under the Defence of India Rules by the Central Government. One of the issues there was as to whether the order of requisition was validly served and, if not, what was the effect thereof ? It was argued by the learned Attorney-General that no service of an order of requisition was necessary under Rule 75a (1) of the Defence of India Rules and, therefore, the court could not imply or introduce something in the Rules which does not exist. Das Gupta, J. stated as follows: "I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Attorney-General. In my opinion, service of an order of a requisition on the person who is required to place the property in question at the disposal of the requisitioning authority is essential and until that is done there cannot be any valid or effective requisition. On this point I am in agreement with the view taken by Sarkar. J. Requisition has been defined in Rule 2 (ii) of the Defence of India Rules as follows: "requisition means in relation to any property, to take possession of the property or require the property to be placed at the disposal of the requisitioning authority." Thus a requisition of a property can be effected in two ways, (a) by taking possession of the property, (b) by requiring the property to be placed at the disposal of the requisitioning authority. In this case we are concerned with the second mode of requisition, i.e. requiring the property to be placed at the disposal of the requisitioning authority. In such a case it is necessary that the authority who is required to place the goods in question at the disposal of the requisitioning authority should be informed about it. In other words he should be asked or required to place the goods at such disposal or else there cannot be any valid or effective requisition. If, of course, requisition is to be effected by the second mode mentioned, such requirement is inherent in the definition of 'requisition' itself." 7. THE learned Chief Justice agreed with this judgment but expressed his doubt as to whether the validity of the requisition could be questioned. Mr. If, of course, requisition is to be effected by the second mode mentioned, such requirement is inherent in the definition of 'requisition' itself." 7. THE learned Chief Justice agreed with this judgment but expressed his doubt as to whether the validity of the requisition could be questioned. Mr. Ghose argues that applying the principle adumbrated to the facts of this case, it should be held that since the order of requisition has not been served the order itself is bad. I am, of course, bound by the judgment of Das Gupta, J. but with great respect I think that it does not militate against what I propose to hold. In my opinion, an order of requisition can be made validly if the provisions laid down in section 3 (1) of the Act are satisfied. In other words, if there is a public purpose, then the requisition order would be valid. All that is required is the existence of a public purpose, the opinion of the State Government of its existence and an order in writing requisitioning the premises. Provided that these three conditions exist, the order would be valid. Next comes the question of its service. Before a requisition is valid one of the essential pre-conditions is that the order must be served inter alia upon the owner. That this is a mandatory provision there can be no doubt. But if it is not complied with I do not see how it makes the order of requisition invalid. What it may do is to make the requisition invalid. A requisition consists of the order of requisition together with all the steps followed in order to gain possession. Until the order is properly served, Government has no power to take steps for taking possession, not to speak of taking actual possession or allowing anybody else to take possession. In the present case, the validity of the order of requisition will have to be judged from the point of view of the existence of a public purpose. Assuming for the moment that a public purpose existed, non-service of the notice makes the requisition bad. In other words, the taking over of possession was bad. In my opinion, therefore, the service being bad, the taking over of possession by the respondent was bad. But this by itself does not affect the order of requisition. Assuming for the moment that a public purpose existed, non-service of the notice makes the requisition bad. In other words, the taking over of possession was bad. In my opinion, therefore, the service being bad, the taking over of possession by the respondent was bad. But this by itself does not affect the order of requisition. I shall at the end of the judgment deal with the question as to what relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. I next come to the point as to whether there exists a public purpose and whether the order of requisition is valid from that point of view. The law on this point has been exhaustively dealt with in an Appellate decision of this court, Satyanarain Nathany v. State of West Bengal (2) (61 C. W. N. 420) Firstly, this decision has made it amply clear that the question as to whether there existed a public purpose is justiciable by the court. Where there is a challenge, the respondent must make out to the satisfaction of the court that there was such a purpose In other words, that the requisitioned property was needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose. The case dealt with a requisition for the purposes of providing quarters for a Government servant. It is not quite clear whether the tests said down by the learned Chief Justice forms a part of the decision, because the learned Chief Justice prefaced it by saying that it was not necessary to lay them down for the purposes of deciding the case and that it was his own individual opinion. However, even so, it is entitled to great weight. As far as I can see the tests laid down are as follows:- (1) Merely saying that an officer of the State Government was sorely in need of accommodation is not sufficient. (2) It must be shown that the Government servant in question had made every possible effort on his own account to secure accommodation and such efforts had failed. (3) It was necessary to establish that in order to ensure the efficient discharge of the duties of his office the particular Government servant in question should find accommodation in Calcutta and could not come from the suburbs or from any of the neighboring localities. (3) It was necessary to establish that in order to ensure the efficient discharge of the duties of his office the particular Government servant in question should find accommodation in Calcutta and could not come from the suburbs or from any of the neighboring localities. (4) A public purpose is a purpose which must include an object and aim in which the general interest of the community, as opposed to the particular interest of the individual, is directly and vitally concerned. (5) A Government servant is in a sense a servant of the public and the public are interested in the proper discharge by him of his duties of office. But where the conditions of service of a Government servant do not require that accommodation has to be provided for him or there is nothing to show that there is some special reason for which it is essential to provide him with residential facilities or to find accommodation for him in a particular locality in order that he may be enabled to perform or perform efficiently the duties of his office, it would not be a public purpose to provide him with accommodation merely because he is in need of accommodation. I now come to the facts of the present case in order to find out how far they will pass the tests laid down above. The respondent Sikha Sen Gupta (wrongly described as Sikha Rani Sen Gupta) has filed an affidavit, stating the facts leading to the requisition. She says that she was formerly an assistant in the records branch of the Education Department and was then posted in the P. A. office, Finance Department of the Government of West Bengal. Some time after her employment under the Government of West Bengal, she was married in 1955 to Sri Deb Prosad Sen Gupta who is an assistant of the Costs Accounts Section of Messrs. Bird and Co. Ltd. Before their marriage her husband lived with his uncle at No. 13a, Lake Terrace, Calcutta. After their marriage, Sikha Rani went to live with her husband in the house of her uncle-in-law. But her uncle-in-law found it inconvenient, as the had a big family and asked the couple to vacate Thereupon, on or about the 12th September, 1955 she applied to the West Bengal government for suitable accommodation. After their marriage, Sikha Rani went to live with her husband in the house of her uncle-in-law. But her uncle-in-law found it inconvenient, as the had a big family and asked the couple to vacate Thereupon, on or about the 12th September, 1955 she applied to the West Bengal government for suitable accommodation. A copy of the application, together with the recommendation of the head of the department is annexed to the affidavit of Purnananda Dutt affirmed on the 5th August, 1957. So far as the application itself is concerned, it merely states that the applicant was in the clerical service in the Education-Records Department at Writers' Buildings, that she had an income of Rs. 146 per month, that she was prepared to pay Rs. 50 as rent and had six adult members in her family. The certificate of the head of the department shows that the applicant was seriously suffering from want of accommodation and had failed to secure any accommodation by private negotiation. It appears that upon this application the Government requisitioned a flat on the ground floor of premises No. 56a, Garcha Road and put her in possession. The owner of the said premises No. 56a, Garcha Road made an application to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and a Rule nisi was issued asking the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing them to cancel the order of requisition in respect of the said flat at No. 56a, Garcha Road, and for other reliefs. The owner of the flat stated that she required the premises for her own use and occupation. It is stated that Government upon making enquiries was satisfied that this was true and correct and decided to release the flat from requisition. The Government thereupon gave notice to Sikha Sen Gupta stating that it had been decided to derequisition the premises and she should vacate the premises by 16th July, 1956. This notice is dated the 21st of April, 1956 and on the 25th of June, 1956 the said Sikha Sen Gupta intimated to the Assistant Secretary to the Land and Land Revenue Department (Requisition branch) at Writers' Building as follows: "in this connection I would like to inform you that I have an information that premises No. 13b, Bompus Road is going to be vacant within 2 or 3 days. As up till now, I could not arrange for any accommodation, I should be obliged if you would kindly make necessary arrangements for requisitioning the same." 9. IT is stated in paragraph 10 of the affidavit affirmed by Purnananda Dutt that the Government of West Bengal caused enquiries to be made regarding the flat in question in this application, and after due enquiry and consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and of the fact that the flat forming the subject matter of this application was usually let out to tenants, an order was made on the 29th of June, 1956 for requisition of the said flat with a view to providing alternative accommodation for the respondent No. 3. In the said paragraph the Assistant Secretary, Land and Land Revenue Department, Government of West Bengal states the reason why it was considered that a public purpose existed. It may be summarised as follows:- (1) Because it was necessary for the residence of respondent No. 3 who had not been able to procure any accommodation on her own efforts since the notice dated 21-4-56. (2) Because she would be thrown out of her flat in 56a, Garcha Road on the 26th July, 1956 and be houseless and put in extreme difficulty unless an alternative accommodation is provided for her in the meantime. (3) Because the flat in question was usually let out to tenants. Applying the tests adumbrated above, I find as follows:- (1) The conditions of service of the said Sikha Rani Sen Gupta did not require that accommodation was to be provided for her by Government. (2) There is no special reason to show that it was essential to provide her with residential facilities in the particular locality, namely, Bompas Road, or even in Calcutta. (3) That so far as the requisition of a flat at 56a, Garcha Road is concerned, it appears that Sm. Sikha Sen Gupta had made every attempt to obtain accommodation but had failed. So far as the present requisition is concerned. I have only her statement in her letter dated the 25th June, 1956 to the effect that up till that date she had not been able to arrange for any accommodation. The particulars that are given are in paragraph 4 of her affidavit dated the 30th August 1956 states that she was making enquiries of various friends about accommodation. I have only her statement in her letter dated the 25th June, 1956 to the effect that up till that date she had not been able to arrange for any accommodation. The particulars that are given are in paragraph 4 of her affidavit dated the 30th August 1956 states that she was making enquiries of various friends about accommodation. This has been elaborated in paragraph 4 of her affidavit affirmed on the 5th August, 1957 wherein she says that two months from 22nd April, 1956 to 25th June, 1956 she and her husband made frantic searches for accommodation personally and through friends and office colleagues. She says that in course of her searches they got information about living accommodation in five different premises mentioned in the paragraph. Thereupon, she and her husband went and inspected each of the five premises. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit are set out particulars of what happened during the search and enquiries in respect of the five premises mentioned in paragraph 4. From what is stated therein, it is clear that with regard to premises No. 22/2, Rustomji Street she was too late in applying after inspection, because in the meantime the flat had been let out. With regard to No. 50q, Garcha Road and 57/4, Chandi Ghose Road, the accommodation was considered too small. At No. 14, Dr. Bihari Road the terms were onerous as the landlord required a registered lease for 20 years. It is clear therefore that the Government servant concerned had made efforts and found possible accommodation but the accommodation that was available was not found to her taste or did not suit her. (4) It has not been stated nor can it be found, that for the efficient discharge of her duties, which is merely clerical, it was essential that she should be found accommodation in Calcutta and could not come from the suburbs. The accommodation required was not totally unavailable, but was available in a form not found suitable by the Government servant. Applying the tests laid down by the learned Chief Justice, I do not see how the tests are satisfied. Firstly, there is no condition of service with the lady concerned that she would be provided with accommodation. The accommodation required was not totally unavailable, but was available in a form not found suitable by the Government servant. Applying the tests laid down by the learned Chief Justice, I do not see how the tests are satisfied. Firstly, there is no condition of service with the lady concerned that she would be provided with accommodation. Where accommodation is scarce, the Government servant concerned cannot be allowed to pick and choose, and it is no part of the duty of the Government to provide accommodation to the liking of the Government servant, by compulsorily requisitioning properties belonging to others. There exist no special circumstances to compel Government to requisition premises for the Government servant concerned. Even the first requisition of the Garcha Road flat would not satisfy the tests. It certainly was a bit of hardship on the lady, because for no fault of her own she had to vacate the Garcha Road flat. But then again, it is not as if she had given up a flat of her own in order to go there. She has admitted that she went to live in the house of her uncle-in-law who did not want herself or her husband to continue living with them. Consequently, she was in no worse position when she was told that she could not continue to live at Garcha Road and would have to look for alternative accommodation. As I have emphasised above, it might have been a different matter if there was absolutely no accommodation available, although I would not go so far as to say that the tests would have been satisfied even in such a case. In this case, however, it is admitted that accommodation was available but it was not to the liking of the Government servant or it did not suit her purse. As I have said there cannot be a public purpose in finding accommodation to the liking and choice of Government employees in my opinion, upon the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the tests laid down by the learned Chief Justice there did not exist any public purpose for the requisition of the flat at 16, Bompas Road for purposes of finding accommodation for Sm. Sikha Sen Gupta. That being so, it must be held that the order of requisition dated the 29th of June, 1956 is bad and not in accordance with law. 10. Sikha Sen Gupta. That being so, it must be held that the order of requisition dated the 29th of June, 1956 is bad and not in accordance with law. 10. IN view of my finding it is not necessary to deal with the 3rd point. Lastly, I come to the relief that can be granted in this application. I have held that the order of requisition is invalid. Therefore, the order of requisition must be quashed and set aside and the respondent must be restrained from giving effect to it. The requisition also was not served properly and therefore the procedure adopted leading to the taking of possession must be declared as bad and illegal. The order itself being bad, the taking of possession would in any event be bad and cannot be supported. But I have already pointed out that there is a person in possession who is not a party to these proceedings and is not bound by what is happening herein. This fact was mentioned before the final hearing, and as a matter of fact it was adjourned for some time in order to enable the petitioner to take such steps as he may be advised. In spite of this, the person in possession has not been made a party to the proceedings and Mr. Ghose appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that he would take the risk of an order being made which will not be binding on the person in possession. He says that he would take such steps as his client may be advised for obtaining possession. The result is that this Rule must be made absolute. There will be a writ issued in the nature of certiorari quashing the requisition order and the proceedings had thereunder, and a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect to it. I must make it clear however that I cannot make any order for the giving of possession, and that this order is not binding upon the person in possession who has not been made a party to these proceedings. This however is without prejudice to any rights the petitioner may have for taking legal proceedings in order to obtain possession. There will be no order as to costs.