ORDER : This is an application by three petitioners, who claim to be the owners of premises No. 156A. Mahatma Gandhi Road. Calcutta. It is the case of the petitioners that the said premises was taken on lease by the superintendent. Railway Mail Service. C-Division, Gaya in the year 1943 for a limited period of three years though no formal deed of lease was executed. On the expiry of the said lease in the year 1946, the lessee that is to say the Superintendent, Railway Mail Service. C-Division, Gaya did not according to the petitioners, hand over the vacant possession of the said premises to the owners of the said premises But at the instance of the said lessee, the Superintendent, Mail Service c- Division, Gaya the respondent not 1 that is to say, First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta requisitioned the said premises under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 and possession of the said premises was retained under the said Act According to the petitioners the only purpose and object of requisition of the said premises was to accommodate the Office of Railway Mail Service. C-Division. Gaya It may not be inappropriate to mention that the order of requisition, however, does not specify any particular object but states as follows: "WHEREAS in the opinion of the Provincial Government the premises described in the Schedule below are needed for a public purpose ; Now, THEREFORE, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-.s (1) of S. 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act. 1947 (West Bengal Act V of 1947), the Provincial Government is pleated hereby to acquisition the premises described in the Schedule below and under Sub-s (4) of the said Section the Governor is further pleased to direct the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta to secure possession of the control over the laid premises and to take such other action as is necessary in connection with the requisitioning in accordance with the provisions of the said Act." 2. But, it is clear from Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-reply of Abhoy Singh Surana. affirmed on 4th August 1979, which is the possession certificate that possession was taken by the Superintendent. Railway Mail Service C-Division. Calcutta. The petitioner further state that the total area of the requisitioned portion of the said premises is 9. to 5 sq ft. But, it is clear from Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-reply of Abhoy Singh Surana. affirmed on 4th August 1979, which is the possession certificate that possession was taken by the Superintendent. Railway Mail Service C-Division. Calcutta. The petitioner further state that the total area of the requisitioned portion of the said premises is 9. to 5 sq ft. comprising of certain floor areas. According to the petitioner Railway Mail Service Division, is now using a fraction of the said requisitioned area measuring 1200 sq. ft. which bas been in use and occupation as office. The remaining portion of the Raid requisitioned area measuring approximately 8, 173 sq. ft. according to the petitioners has ceased to be used for the office of Railway Mail Service, C-Division Out of the remaining portion of the requisitioned area, an area approximately 4.700 sq ft. is being used as Rest House accommodation for NB 7 & P 4 Division of Indian Posts & Telegraph Department and the balance remaining portion of the raid requisitioned area for Office of the said 'NB' and 'P'•Division', The petitioners assert that the said requisition was not for accommodation of "N'- B' and 'p. Division' of Railway Mail Service or for setting up any Rest House and office of the said department, The petitioner further case is that as the portion of the laid premises is being used as Rest House it creates nuisance and harassment to other tenants of the petitioners who are occupying other floor of the said premises in question. The petitioners in those circumstances and in view of the fact that the premises in question had remained under requisition for more than 34 years made a representation to the Government and the Government accepted, according to the petitioners the said representation and replied on the 4th February, 1978, as follows: "Kindly refer to your letter dated November 77 addressed to Minister (C) on the above subject. It has been decided to vacate the Rest House accommodation of 'NB' and Provision from your above cited building. The other P & T office and establishment functioning in 156A, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta will continue there Postmaster General, Bihar Circle has been addressed to search out a suitable building in the vicinity of Howrah Railway Station. When the building becomes available the portion occupied by the rest house will be vacated," 3. The other P & T office and establishment functioning in 156A, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta will continue there Postmaster General, Bihar Circle has been addressed to search out a suitable building in the vicinity of Howrah Railway Station. When the building becomes available the portion occupied by the rest house will be vacated," 3. Thereafter, attempts were made to find out suitable accommodation for the Rest House and, according to the petitioners, such suitable accommodation was found out and offered. But the Government did not vacate and did not de-requisition the premises. In the premises, the petitioners have moved this application under Article 226 of the constitution alleging that there is no public purpose justifying the continuance of the requisition and the premises, in question should be de-requisitioned it may be mentioned that in the meantime the petitioners had made an application for increase or enhancement of rent which application was made without prejudice to the petitioners contention in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Upon this application being made, Rule Nisi was issued. 4. My attention was drawn to certain provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1982 Section 3 of the said Act speaks about the power to requisition and it is not necessary to refer to that section. Section 23 Which validates certain requisition provides as follows ; "23. Validation of certain requisitions and acquisitions-(1) All immovable property which purports to have been requisitioned by. State Government for any public purpose being a purpose of the Union, under any Provincial or State Act and which, immediately before the 25th day of January, 1952. was used or occupied by the Central Government or by an officer or authority subordinate to that Government shall as from that date, be deemed to be property duly requisitioned under S. 3 of this Act, and every such requisition shall, notwithstanding any judgment decree or order of any court, be deemed always to have been valid as if this Act bad been in force on and from the date of the requisition and the requisition had been duly made by a competent authority under this Act, and all the provision. of this Act shall apply accordingly; Provided that all agreements and awards for the payment of compensation in respect of a any such property for any period of requisition before the 25th day of January, 1952 and in force immediately before that date shall be valid and shall be deemed always to have been valid and shall continue to be in force and shall apply to the payment of compensation in respect of that properly for any period of requisition after that date. (2) Every acquisition of immovable property purporting to have been made before the commencement of this Act by a State Government for any public purpose, being a purpose of the Union, under any enactment for the time being in force in that State and which immediately before such commencement, was used or occupied by the Central Government or by an officer or authority subordinate to that Government shall notwithstanding any defect in of invalidity of the enactment or order under which the acquisition was made be deemed for all purposes to have been validity made as if the provisions of the said enactment or order had been included and enacted in this section and this section had been in force on and from the date of the acquisition." 5. Reliance was also placed on the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 6 which provides. Inter alia as follows : "Provided that where the purpose for which any requisitioned property was being used cease to exist the Central Government shall, unless the property is acquired under S. 7, release that property as soon as may be, from requisition." 6. It was contended that as the purpose for which the property was requisitioned had ceased to exist at least a substantial portion of the same, the property should be released from the requisition in view of the said proviso. It was secondly, submitted that Government had agreed to de• requisition the premises in question and it was not bona fide on the part of the Government not to de-requisition the premises now. It is urged that the property being under requisition for over 34/35 years great inconvenience and hardship are caused to the owners of the premises whose numbers of members in the family have increased with the passage of time. 7. It is urged that the property being under requisition for over 34/35 years great inconvenience and hardship are caused to the owners of the premises whose numbers of members in the family have increased with the passage of time. 7. The main question, is whether the property which was requisitioned is now being used, at least a portion of the lame, for a purpose which is not public purpose. Now, the Purpose for which a substantial portion of the premises is question is being used. viz as the Rest House accommodation for NB-7 & P-4 Division of India Posts & Telegraph Department and portion for Office of the said 'NB' and 'P' Division are public purposes cannot be disputed. As matter of fact, this position was not seriously disputed by the petitioners. But the petitioners mainly contended that that the original object for which the premises in question, was requisitioned having ceased, it was no longer possible to use the requisitioned premises for any other object which, mayor may not be a public purpose. As I mentioned before, the premises in question bad been requisitioned for public purpose. It was not requisitioned for user for any particular object. It is true that the immediate necessity for requisioning the property was the user for the office of Railway Mail Service, C-Division and that was the public purpose upon which the requisitioning authority was satisfied to have requisitioned the premises, in question. But the subsequent user of a portion of the said premises or other users which are also public purposes, does not in my opinion, defeat the original requisitioned for public purpose. The proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 6 upon which• great, reliance was placed states if "the purpose for which any requisitioned property was being used cease to exist." Now the purpose; as I said before was public purpose and not the actual user or the object by which the public purpose was being sub-served, Therefore, if that public purpose continues in the form of need for Rest. House and office of other authorities, then it cannot be said that the purpose for which, viz. the public: purpose, the property in question was requisitioned had ceased to exit. Therefore, in my opinion the proviso to sub-s (1) of S.6 cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners. 8. House and office of other authorities, then it cannot be said that the purpose for which, viz. the public: purpose, the property in question was requisitioned had ceased to exit. Therefore, in my opinion the proviso to sub-s (1) of S.6 cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners. 8. On behalf of the petitioners, it was urged that even though in the original order of requisitioning it was not mandatory or necessary to state the actual user yet upon a particular user the requisitioning authority must be satisfied and in the instant case, the requisitioning authority must have been satisfied that the original object intended to be served by requisitioning it for the public purpose. But for the continuance of the said requisition for serving different user or different object which may be public purpose does not relate back to the original satisfaction of the requisitioning authority. That is true. But if it could be demonstrated that the subsequent user was for user which was not public purpose then that a mandate could be is used upon the requisitioning authority to de-requisition the property, But If it is not established or accepted that the subsequent user is not for public purpose then in my opinion this position Cannot be accepted. 9. The sarong part that is to say the Government had agreed to de-requisition the premise the stand of the government was that was not unconditional. It was subject to their finding out suitable accommodation for ocher purposes for which the premises in question was being used. Now therefore if the Government or the requisitioning authority has not been able to find out a suitable accommodation for this purpose then in my opinion non de-requisitioning of the premises cannot legally be. called mala fide action on the part of the Government; 10. It is true that it Government keep the premises in question under requisition for such along time on rent which must be dis-proportionately low than the market rate available causes great hardship to the owners and specially to the petitioners. But, in view of the position, in law, in my opinion, this application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. It is true that it Government keep the premises in question under requisition for such along time on rent which must be dis-proportionately low than the market rate available causes great hardship to the owners and specially to the petitioners. But, in view of the position, in law, in my opinion, this application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. I, however, make it clear that the application of the petitioners as made for enhancement of its rent must be disposed of as quickly as possible and that will not prejudice the claim of the petitioners to continue to ask for de-requisitioning if suitable accommodation is found out for the purpose now being served by the premise in question. With these observations the Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to Costs. Rule discharged.