ORDER : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. Present is the second round of litigation, as earlier this petitioner had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 2123 of 2005. The same was disposed of by order dated 18th February 2005 (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice CK Buch, as he then was). The relevant part of the order reads as under: "2. This is a case of two concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the lower Courts. It is apparent that the present petitioner has attempted to have the order of mandatory nature moving an application under Order 39 Rule I & II, r/w. Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is settled principle that unless very exceptional circumstances are emerging from record, the order of mandatory nature at an interim stage normally should not be passed; and the Court should normally go slow when such or similar type of prayers are made. The lower Court has rightly observed that if such an interim relief will be granted, the Court will be decreeing the Suit by allowing application Exh.5. 3. However, there is some strength in the say of Mr. Soni that the Collector, Surendranagar, may be directed to discharge his obligation at the earliest. Hence, it is hereby directed that the Collector, Surendranagar, shall discharge his statutory obligation without being influenced by the orders passed by the lower Courts and shall undertake the survey and subsequent proceedings under Section 17(D) of the Bombay Rent Act, if it is statutorily required, at the earliest, preferably within six months. 4. Having considered the nature of Suit filed by the present petitioner and findings recorded in paragraphs:15 and 16 by the Appellate Court while disposing of the Appeal being Civil Misc. Appeal No.26 of 2004, the Court does not find any merit in this petition and there is no scope for this Court to exercise powers of superintendence in the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the above observations and directions, the present petition is hereby disposed of with no order as to costs......" 2. After the aforesaid petition was disposed of, the Collector, Surendranagar passed an order in Bombay Rent Act Case No. 2 of 2005. 5. In view of the above observations and directions, the present petition is hereby disposed of with no order as to costs......" 2. After the aforesaid petition was disposed of, the Collector, Surendranagar passed an order in Bombay Rent Act Case No. 2 of 2005. The Collector passed a well considered order on 12th January 2006 u/s. 11(B) and 17(D) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). S. 11(B) of the said Act is produced as under: 11(B) Right of tenants in new building when premises damaged or destroyed due to natural calamity Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where by reason of earthquake or any other natural calamity, any material part of the premises is wholly destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let, - (a) and (b)... 2.1 Section 17(D) of the said Act provides for vesting of original site in the State Government. Subsection (1)(a) of Section 17(D) reads as under: (1) (a) Where a landlord fails to erect a new building within the period specified in clause (a) of Section 11(A), or as the case may be, in clause (b) of Section 11(B), the original site, irrespective of whether the premises thereon referred to in section 11(A) or section 11(B) exist or not, shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances for the purpose of erection of new building to provide accommodation to tenants, and there shall be paid to the landlord such compensation for such site; as may, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, under section 49, by an order be determined by the Collector. (b) The terms and conditions for providing accommodation to tenants and after erection of new building shall be such as may be prescribed. Subsection (2) ...... (provision for appeal)". 3. (b) The terms and conditions for providing accommodation to tenants and after erection of new building shall be such as may be prescribed. Subsection (2) ...... (provision for appeal)". 3. In the present case, as is recorded in the order passed by the Collector dated 12th January 2006, that the petitioner was residing at Surendranagar as a tenant in the premises of one Smt. Kantaben Chunilal Bhavsar in the upper portion of the building; that on 26th January 2001, in earthquake, the said building had collapsed and was thus not possible to be occupied; that the petitioner is residing at some other place; that the opponent (landlord) is not constructing the new house and as u/s. 11(B) of the Act if landlord does not construct new house and give it to the tenant for residence, u/s. 17(D), the site vests in the Government for constructing the new house and provide the same for residence. 4. The petitioner approached the Civil Judge (S.D.), Surendranagar by filing Civil Suit No. 89 of 2004 and thereafter, filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 26 of 2004 in the Court of District Judge, Surendranagar and then filed a Special Civil Application No. 2123 of 2005 before this Court, wherein, the Collector was directed to undertake a survey and to act as per the provisions of Section 17(D) of the said Act. 5. The present petition is filed on 8th December 2008. 5.1 The averments made in Para 2, 3, 4 and 5 in substance incorporate the aforesaid facts of the case. 5.2 In Para 5, it is stated that, "...... on the basis of the said order passed by the Hon'ble Court the respondent then passed order dated 12/01/2006, after calling for reports from the Mamlatdar and the City Survey Superintendent, Surendranagar and after hearing the concerned parties including the heirs of Landlady, for vesting the premises in the State Government, for taking possession of the premises and for payment of the compensation to the owner of the premises. By the said order the City Survey Superintendent, Surendranagar is directed to take possession of the premises and the Dy. Collector Vadhvan is directed to produce report of the valuation of the property..........On the basis of the said order, the possession of the premises was taken over by the officers of the City Survey Superintendent on 06/06/2006". By the said order the City Survey Superintendent, Surendranagar is directed to take possession of the premises and the Dy. Collector Vadhvan is directed to produce report of the valuation of the property..........On the basis of the said order, the possession of the premises was taken over by the officers of the City Survey Superintendent on 06/06/2006". 5.3 In Para 6 of the petition it is stated that, "The petitioner submits that since suit did not survive, the petitioner withdrew the suit, however unfortunately after taking possession of the premises in the month of June 2006, no further action has been taken by the respondent as contemplated u/s. 17D of the Rent Act......" 5.4 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that, for the inaction on the part of the Collector the present petition is filed. He submitted that, the petitioner has prayed in Para 9(B) that, "be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondent to immediately erect new house at the site of the rented damaged premises situated at ward no.5, house no.349, Nr. Mai Mandir, Javahar Road, Surendranagar, possession whereof was taken over by the City Survey Superintendent as per the order dated 12/01/2006 passed by the respondent and annexure 'B' to this petition and had over such newly constructed premises to the petitioner for his residential accommodation". 5.5 The petition was amended as per the Court's order dated 19th June 2009 and following prayer is added; "be pleased to quash and set aside the notice dated 2/2/2009 at Annexure 'C1' to this petition and direct the respondent to first construct the house for the petitioner and allot/hand over the same to the petitioner by changing 10 % to 15 % in the rent of Rs. 70/ per month paid by the petitioner to his landlord by issuing suitable writ, direction and/order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India". 5.6 Along with the amendment of prayer clause, Para 7A was also added to the petition. 70/ per month paid by the petitioner to his landlord by issuing suitable writ, direction and/order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India". 5.6 Along with the amendment of prayer clause, Para 7A was also added to the petition. The submissions made in that para are relevant and therefore, they are reproduced for ready perusal; "The petitioner submits that the petitioner has been served with the notice dated 2/2/09 by the respondent under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1948 under the Rent Act stating therein that under Rule 28 (3) (B) to 28 (3) (F), the petitioner is required to give declaration as per the terms and conditions of the said Rule and the petitioner is required to pay Rs. 3,11,116/ under Rule 28 (3) (F) for which hearing is fixed on 17/2/09......" The petitioner has given reply to the said notice pointing out that the notice is premature; that he is very poor person and old aged of 80 years and his widowed daughter has been staying with him; that it is not possible for him to pay excess amount; that the rent of premises was Rs. 70/ per month and looking to his monthly income, he can afford 10% to 15% increase in the rent; that under the above Rules, no notice is practicable unless house for the victim...." 5.7 Notice was issued by this Court on 11th December 2008 returnable on 24th December 2008. On 25th June 2009, the Court has noted in its order in Para 2 that, "Today, Mr. Rindani, learned AGP on instructions from Ms. Dhara Shah, Mamlatdar, Surendranagar (Disaster Management Branch) made a statement that the authorities have already moved in the matter as back as on 21.08.2008 and they are expecting favourable orders from the higher authorities....." 5.8 The learned AGP has filed an affidavit in the matter. Along with affidavit, a Communication dated 28th January 2009 from the Collector, Surendranagar to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department is also placed on record. In that communication, in Para 6, it is stated that approximately an amount of Rs. 3,91,700/ will be required to be spend for putting up construction. It is further stated that, if an amount of Rs. 80,584/ which is award able for the damage to the property is deducted, an amount of Rs. 3,11,116/ is required to be allotted for construction of the building. 3,91,700/ will be required to be spend for putting up construction. It is further stated that, if an amount of Rs. 80,584/ which is award able for the damage to the property is deducted, an amount of Rs. 3,11,116/ is required to be allotted for construction of the building. 5.9 At one stage, on representation of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that, 'the petitioner is an aged person and the only family member residing with him is the widowed daughter', it was put to the learned AGP as to whether it will be possible for the State authorities to provide for an accommodation, which may be prepared by using prefabricated structure. An order was passed on 24th July 2009 to the effect that, "Learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) Mr. Rindani to file an affidavit by 4th August 2009. Learned AGP also to take instructions with regard to providing one roomkitchen accommodation to the tenant on the site in question, which may be that of prefabricated nature and the learned AGP to place on record the cost of such prefabricated structure and the rent thereof according to the Government norms......" 5.10 In response to the same, the learned AGP Mr. Rindani has placed on record the details of the family members of the petitioner which is as under: Sr. Name Age Occupation Residing at 1. Manharsinh Navalsinh Parmar (Petitioner) 83 Retired …... 2. Atulsinh Manharsinh Parmar (Son) 50 Electric work Mumbai 3. Anilsinh Manharsinh Parmar (Son) 48 Electric work Vadodara 4. Sanjaysinh Manharsinh Parmar (Son) 35 Service in G.E.B, Vadodara. 5. Jagdishsinh Manharsinh Parmar (Son) (Unmarried) 30 Mumbai As against that the details of the family of the landlord are as under: Sr. No. Name Relation Residing at Remarks 1. Kantaben Chunilal Bhavsar - Surendranagar Dead 2. Hasmukhbhai Chunilal Bhavsar - -do- Dead 3. Mahavirbhai Hasmukhlal Bhavsar - -do- - 4. Rashmiben Hasmukhlal Bhavsar Daughter Vadodara Married 5. Riddhiben Hasmukhlal Bhavsar -do- Rajkot Unmarried 6. Kishiorbhai Chunilal Bhavsar Brother of Hasmukhbhai - Age: 62, Service, Annual Income Rs. 18,000/- 7. Natvarlal Chunilal Bhavsar -do- Surendranagar Age: 58, Service in Rajavir Soda Factory, Annual Income Rs. 18,000/- 8. Dilipbhai Chunilal Bhavsar -do- -do- Age: 55, Unmarried, Unsound mind 9. Pratimbhai Chunilal Bhavsar -do- -do- Service in a Soda Bottling, Annual Income Rs. 15,000/- 10. Dineshbhai Chunilal Bhavsar -do- -do- Age: 42, Service in a Sugarcane Juice Shop, Annual Income Rs. Natvarlal Chunilal Bhavsar -do- Surendranagar Age: 58, Service in Rajavir Soda Factory, Annual Income Rs. 18,000/- 8. Dilipbhai Chunilal Bhavsar -do- -do- Age: 55, Unmarried, Unsound mind 9. Pratimbhai Chunilal Bhavsar -do- -do- Service in a Soda Bottling, Annual Income Rs. 15,000/- 10. Dineshbhai Chunilal Bhavsar -do- -do- Age: 42, Service in a Sugarcane Juice Shop, Annual Income Rs. 12,000/- 6. These details assume significance because the petitioner, by amendment, placed Para 7(A) on the record of this case and represented, creating an impression that there is nobody to render support, either financial or psychological. The details, which are placed on record of this case are, 'he is a very poor person and old aged of 80 years and his widowed daughter has been staying with him...' It is on the basis of this information that on 24th July 2009, the Court asked the learned AGP, "to take instructions with regard to providing one roomkitchen accommodation to the tenant on the site in question, which may be that of prefabricated nature..." 7. The Bombay Rent Act is a piece of benevolent legislation. The object and reasons for the enactment of this legislation reads as under: S. 11(B) of the said Act is produced as under: 11(B) Right of tenants in new building when premises damaged or destroyed due to natural calamity Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where by reason of earthquake or any other natural calamity, any material part of the premises is wholly destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let, - (a) and (b)... Section 17(D) of the said Act provides for vesting of original site in the State Government. Section 17(D) of the said Act provides for vesting of original site in the State Government. Subsection (1)(a) of Section 17(D) reads as under: (1) (a) Where a landlord fails to erect a new building within the period specified in clause (a) of Section 11(A), or as the case may be, in clause (b) of Section 11(B), the original site, irrespective of whether the premises thereon referred to in section 11(A) or section 11(B) exist or not, shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances for the purpose of erection of new building to provide accommodation to tenants, and there shall be paid to the landlord such compensation for such site; as may, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, under section 49, by an order be determined by the Collector. (b) The terms and conditions for providing accommodation to tenants and after erection of new building shall be such as may be prescribed. Subsection (2) ...... (provision for appeal)". 7.1 The provision of Section 11(B) coupled with the provision of Section 17(D) are made with a purpose to see that in a welfare state, no person is rendered shelterless and the Act places the liability on the head of the State itself to provide for a residential accommodation. 8. The Court is of the opinion that this has to be done in a case where it is 'de facto' and 'de jure' required. 'De facto' means when there is nobody in the world to give support to such a person and 'De jure' means when the person is not having any source on which reliance can be placed for availing residential accommodation. The fact that petitioner did not disclose about his four sons, two of them residing at Bombay, earning by undertaking an occupation relating to electric work, one son at Vadodara, in service of the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board and another son, aged about 30 years is also at Bombay. Keeping this information back and placing on record of the Court that, "petitioner is an aged person and only widowed daughter is residing with him", is a statement made with an intention to obtain an order favourable. The Court treats this conduct of the petitioner to be a suppression of a material fact and that suppression is with an 'ill design' to obtain a favourable order. 9. The Court treats this conduct of the petitioner to be a suppression of a material fact and that suppression is with an 'ill design' to obtain a favourable order. 9. Taking into consideration the advance age of the petitioner, the Court restrains itself from taking any action for Criminal Contempt, as suppression of any material fact from the Court, with a view to obtain favourable order, prima facie amounts to a contempt of Court but only due to advanced age of the petitioner, the Court declines to take any action for the same. 10. But the Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that here is a petitioner who is out for 'a pound of flesh', more particularly, looking to the background of the family history of the landlord. It is on record that the petitioner was a tenant in this premises for last more than 28 years. The rent was Rs. 70/ only per month. It is also not on record that the landlord is so affluent that he can afford to get constructed a new building and give it to the petitioner for doing charity. 11. In view of that, the present petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,500/, deposit of which shall be condition precedent for filing any other proceedings in the matter. Petition dismissed.