Short Note : By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenged the order dated 10th December 1973 passed by the Collector. Jabalpur, under section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation (Requisition) Act, 1948, in respect of House No. 272 Jabalpur. House No. 272 was owned by one Singhai Tejpal. The petitioner was a tenant in the house. On 6th November 1973, the petitioner entered into an agreement for purchasing House No. 272 along with House Nos. 272/1 and 273, for a consideration of Rs. 40,000. An amount of Rs. 5,000 was paid as an advance to Singhai Tejpal. The Agreement is Annexure "A". Held : Learned counsel for the petitioner contends before this Court that the power of requisition under section 3 of the Act cannot be exercised without giving prior notice to the occupier and owner of the property. In the opinion of this Court, the contention is well founded. It does not appear that any notice was issued to the petitioner or to the owner of the house before requisition. The petitioner immediately after the requisition, filed his objection to the Collector on 18-12-73. No reply was given to the objection filed by the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, it is implicit in section 3 that before an accommodation is requisitioned the person in occupation and the owner would be noticed as to why the accommodation be not requisitioned under section 3(2) of the Act. It is true that this requirement is not specifically mentioned in this section, but as every statutory power has to be reasonably and fairly exercised, such a requirement must be read in section 3 as a matter of construction. As the petitioner was not noticed before the order of requisition was passed, the order in invalid. Madan Gopal v. District Magistrate, AIR 1972 SC 2656 , relied on. Petition allowed.