JUDGMENT - Bharucha,S. P. J.-The facts of this petition reveal the shocking state of affairs that obtains in the office of the Controller of Accommodation of the State of Maharashtra, 2. By an order dated 15th October 1959 room No. 2 on the third floor of Kishan Building, 356-370, Samuel Street, Bombay, was requisition ed under the Bombay Land Requisition Act for a public purpose, viz., for housing a person rendered homeless due to land requisitioning. By an order passed on the same day the premises were allotted to the third respondent. 3. The petitioners purchased Kishan Building in March 1979. On 22nd January 1980 they made a representation to the authorities that the premises should be released from requisitioning. On 15th February 1980 the Controller of Accommodation informed the petitioners' advocate that the request to release could not be granted. On 23rd July 1980 this peti tion was filed impugning the continued requisitioning of the premises. 4. On 11th August 1980 one Neralekar, Accommodation Officer in the office of the Controller of Accommodation, filed an affidavit on behalf of the 1st and the 2nd respondents opposing admission. It contained mere denials. On 12th January 1984 a partner of the petitioners filed an affidavit alleging that in 1982 the 1st and 2nd respondents had surreptitiously inducted into the premises a strange person in the place of the 3rd respondent and had not furnished to them the name of that person. Upon this allegation the relief of de-requisitioning was sought. Thereafter the petition was allowed to be amended to make this a ground therein. In reply to the amendment one Satlie, an Accommodation Officer in the office of the Controller of Accommodation filed an affidavit. He stated that the 3rd respondent had died in or about 1970. One W. K. Patil made a repre-. sentation to Government to transfer the allotment to bins. On 28th July 19S2 be was served a show cause notice. He replied on 7th August 1982 stating that the deceased 3rd respondent was his paternal uncle and that: he had been staying in the premises since 1969 along with the deceased third respondent. He requested that the show cause notice be withdrawn. Oa 2nd September 1982 the Controller of Accommodation issued an order requiring W. K. Patil to vacate the premises within one month from the date of receipt of the order. He requested that the show cause notice be withdrawn. Oa 2nd September 1982 the Controller of Accommodation issued an order requiring W. K. Patil to vacate the premises within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The latter part of the affidavit bears quotation : “I say that at that time the Government was considering the proposition of permitting allottees /occupants in respect of requisition premises to be direct tenants with the landlords, if such a request came from allottees, occupants and the landlords, I say that the Government, however, Liter on dropped the proposal, I say that now the action is being taken for vacating the said W. K. Patil from the room in question and to allot the same to State Government servant.” 5. On 21st January 1984 Sathe filed a further affidavit in which he states that as the Controller of Accommodation got information that the third respondent was not residing in the premises and some other person was residing therein, a show cause notice was Issued on 4th May 1964 against the third respondent and the occupant. To this notice W. K. Patii me.de a representation dated 19th May 1964 to the effect that the third respondent was his uncle and that he had been residing with the third respondent from the very beginning. He requested that the premises be transferred to his name. A. communication was addressed to him on 19th June 1964 requesting him to produce evidence to show that he was the nephew of the third respondent and that he had been residing with the third respondent from the very beginning. On 18th July 1964 W. K, Patil wrote in reply only stating that be was staying with the third respondent from the very beginning. He produced no documentary evidence. 6. Upon the facts disclosed by the affidavits on behalf of the first and the second respondents it is clear that as far back as July 1964 the respondents had come to the conclusion that W. K. Patil had no right or interest in the premises and his occupation thereof was unauthorised. None theless he was permitted to occupy the premises until a fresh show cause notice was issued to him in July 1982. In the meantime, in July 1980 this petition had been filed and an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Controller of Accommodation. None theless he was permitted to occupy the premises until a fresh show cause notice was issued to him in July 1982. In the meantime, in July 1980 this petition had been filed and an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Controller of Accommodation. The Controller of Accommodation did not think it fit to inform the Court in that affidavit as to what had already transpired. Even after the show cause notice of 28th July 1982 and the order of 2nd September 1982 requiring W. K. Patil to vacate the premises he continues in occupation thereof. 7. This is surely a gross case of the requisition order being allowed to perpetuate for 20 years unauthorised occupation of requisitioned premises. It is patent that premises which have been allowed to continue in unauthorised occupation for so long a period cannot be said to be required by the State for a public purpose and the continued requisition thereof must be brought to an end. Accordingly the petition is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). Having regard to the gross circumstances which I have outlined above, the first and the second respondents shall hand over vacant possession of the premises to the petitioners within one week from today. Rule accordingly with costs. Petition made absolute ----