JUDGMENT In this application the petitioner who is the Administratrix of the Estate of late N.C. Goenka challenges an order of requisition of a premises in Darjeeling known as "Goenka Lodge", being holding No. 1, Ward No. 8, Uday Chand Mahatab Road. The impugned order is passed under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The principal ground of challenge to the requisition is that the petitioner was not given hearing and that the proceedings were contrary to the principles of natural justice. Elaborate grounds have been taken on this aspect of the matter. One of the grounds which is ground No. XIX may be quoted : "For that it is incumbent upon the respondents herein to afford your petitioners an opportunity of hearing before purporting to pass the impugned order of requisition and in the absence of such opportunity of hearing the said impugned notice is illegal, bad in law and is violative of the principles or natural justice." 3. This, as I have said, is the principal ground on which the Rule Nisi was issued by me and an interim injunction was granted restraining the respondents from taking any steps under the impugned order of requisition. 4. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Suniti Kumar Busu, Special Land Acquisition Collector, Darjeeling and affirmed on the 3rd June 1976, it is stated in paragraph 5 as follows :– "I say that after receipt of the said notice of requisition the petitioner No. 2 duly made representation before the respondents concerned and she was given full and adequate opportunity of a hearing I say that in consonance with the desire of the petitioner No. 2 for time on 3.5.76, the respondent No.2 adjourned taking possession of the requisitioned house till further orders on 10.5.76 the petitioner was heard and the petitioner wanted the requisition to be given effect to only in respect second and third floor of the requisitioned house leaving the ground floor and the first flour untouched. I say that the respondent no. 2 however, rejected the said prayer and thereafter on the 13.5.76 the learned Advocate for the petitioners sent a letter demanding justice and the said letter was curiously dated 3.5.76 although up to 10.5.76 the petitioners were given hearing and the petitioner no. I say that the respondent no. 2 however, rejected the said prayer and thereafter on the 13.5.76 the learned Advocate for the petitioners sent a letter demanding justice and the said letter was curiously dated 3.5.76 although up to 10.5.76 the petitioners were given hearing and the petitioner no. 2 was also represented by her learned Advocate Shri N. Sarkar and her constituent attorney Sri D. N. Goutam. I say that the petitioner herself gave a letter to the respondent No. 2 intimating her thanks to the respondent No. 2 for allowing her hearin but most unfortunately in the Writ petition the petitioner deliberately made a false statement to effect that there was absence of such opportunity of hearing." 5. At the time of the hearing the records of the case were produced before rue by Mr. Sakti Prasad Mukherjee learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents to substantiate the statements mentioned above. I gave leave to the respondents to file a supplementary affidavit annexing the copies of the relevant records which have since been filed. The relevant portion of the ordersheet and a letter from the petitioner were also directed to be kept on record and has been so done. The relevant portion of the ordersheet may be set out hereinbelow : "3.5.76 ; Seen prayer dated 3.5.76 from Smt. Rama Sundari Devi for time. Time allowed till 10.5.76 for hearing, Taking possession of the house 'Goenka Lodge' is adjourned till further orders. Sd/. Illegible. Deputy Commissioner. 10.5.76 Heard the party who wanted requisition order to be given effect to only in respect of 2nd and 3rd floors only, leaving the ground floor and the Ist floor. This cannot be allowed. Prayer in respect of the 1st floor is rejected. Serve copy of the Requisition Order upon all persons known or believed to be interested in the property to surrender possession of the entire property excepting the ground floor of' the building, with furniture, if any, to Shri P. M. Bharates, L. A. Kanungo, attached to this office on 18.5.76 at 11 A.M. Sd/-Illegible. Deputy Commissioner. 6. The petitioner wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner whose orders I have set out above. On the 8th May, 1976 which is also apart of the record and which may be set out herein below. "Dear Sir, I am thankful to you for allowing me a bearing. Deputy Commissioner. 6. The petitioner wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner whose orders I have set out above. On the 8th May, 1976 which is also apart of the record and which may be set out herein below. "Dear Sir, I am thankful to you for allowing me a bearing. As I am still not keeping well I have authorised Sri N. Sarkar, Advocate and my Constituted Attorney Sri D. N. Gautam to appear before you on 10th May, 1976 to represent myself and to explain to you my difficulties in connection with the requisition of Goenka Lodge, Darjeeling. Yours faithfully Sd/- R. S. DEVI. 7. It is therefore clear from the records that not only was the petitioner duly served with a notice but was given a hearing at her own request and was heard through her representatives before the impugned order was sought to be given their effect to. Mr. Mukherjee contended that all these facts have deliberately suppressed from this Court with a view to obtaining the present Rule. In my view, this contention should be accepted. I am of the opinion that there has been a deliberate suppression of material facts in this case with a view to mislead the Court in granting the Rule Nisi and an injunction. It is well settled that if there has been a supression of such material facts which, if not supressed, would have disinclined the Court to grant a Rule Nisi, such supression is ground for discharge of the Rule in limine without going into the merits of this case. In my view the supression in the instant case is exactly of that nature and deserved the discharge of this Rule without going into the merits of this case. Having regard to the arguments advanced on both sides however I shall briefly advert to the contentions raised. 8. It is first contended that there was no proper service of the notice in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act which provides that an order of requisition passed under Section 3(1) of the Act shall be served in the prescribed manner on the landlord and where it relates to premises let out the tenant, also on such tenant. My attention was drawn to the affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 5 whereof, it has been stated that the building has been rented out to tenants. My attention was drawn to the affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 5 whereof, it has been stated that the building has been rented out to tenants. It was contended that there was no service of the notice on the tenants and consequently the order of requisition was bad. 9. Without going into the question whether assuming that there has been no service of notice on the tenants that would vitiate the order of requisition or would only be a bar or hindrance to taking possession of the requisitioned premises, in my view this question does not arise for consideration in this case. This is because, as pointed out by Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the respondents, that there is no averment in the petition that any portion of the premises has been let out to tenants or that the order of requisition is vitiated as a result of non-service of the impugned notice on the tenants. Needless to say, no such grounds has been taken in this petition. In that view of the matter, I reject this contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 10. It was further submitted by Mr. Gautam Chakravorty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there was no statement in the order of requisition whether the house was being requisitioned with or without furniture. Consequently the order was of requisition was in contravention of Section 3. 11. In my view although Section 3 speaks of requisition of premises "with or without any of the furniture," it is not necessary to state that in the order of requisition itself. It may be done at a subsequent stage. In the instant case it appears that on the 10th May, 1976 the Deputy Commissioner had directed that the premises be taken possession of with the furniture, if any. This is my view is perfectly in order. This contention is therefore rejected. 12. It is next contended that there was no notice to the landlord or tenant to remove the articles belonging to them in terms of Section 4(aa) of the Act. This according to Mr. Chakraborty made the order of requisition bad. 13. There are two answers in this contention. In the first place as pointed out by Mr. Mukherjee, no violation of Section 4 of the Act has been alleged in the petition. This according to Mr. Chakraborty made the order of requisition bad. 13. There are two answers in this contention. In the first place as pointed out by Mr. Mukherjee, no violation of Section 4 of the Act has been alleged in the petition. Secondly, in my view, the provisions of Section 4 are in the nature of follow-up actions which are to be taken after the order of requisition is made. In view of the fact that the petitioner had asked for hearing and the order of requisition had been kept in abeyance and thereafter an injunction was obtained from this Court, no such action could be taken under Section 4 by the concerned authorities in this case. This contention is also therefore rejected. 14. Before I conclude, I would once again like to comment on the conduct of the petitioner. As will appear from what I have stated above on the 10th May, 1976 the Deputy Commissioner, Darjeeling gave a hearing to the petitioner's representatives. It was on the same day that this Court was moved and a Rule Nisi and an injunction was issued. Not only was this Court kept totally in the dark about the hearing the authorities at Darjeeling were kept equally in the dark about the fact that the petitioner was moving this Court on the same day when she was allowed hearing and was heard through her representatives. As I have said above, it is on this ground alone that this application should be rejected. 15. In the result this application fails and is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.