### Arbitrator cannot be appointed under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act for periods of unauthorized occupation. Case Summary: Facts: The petitioners' premises were requisitioned under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947. After the statutory requisition period expired on March 31, 1992, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation remained in "wrongful and illegal" possession until January 13, 2023. The petitioners sought the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act to determine compensation for this period of unauthorized occupation. Issue: Whether an Arbitrator can be appointed under the 1947 Act to determine compensation for a period during which the property was held without legal authority after the requisition ended. Ruling: The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 11(1)(b) applies strictly to premises under valid requisition. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in *Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. v. W.B. Mineral Development*, the Court concluded that once the requisition period expires and possession becomes illegal, the statutory machinery for appointing an Arbitrator cannot be invoked to assess mesne profits or compensation for that period. Revision of rent during such periods must follow the specific caps and procedures under Section 14A of the Act.

The petitioners’ predecessor owned Premises No. 2, Garstin Place, Kolkata, which was requisitioned in portions between 1965 and 1986 under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 ("1947 Act").

An Arbitrator previously fixed rent compensation up to July 27, 1989.

In a previous writ petition (WP/61/2017), a coordinate bench held that the requisitioned status became illegal after the midnight of March 31, 1992, upon the expiry of the statutory period under Section 10B of the Act.

The authorities delivered possession on January 13, 2023, and assessed revised compensation for the period from April 1, 1992, to January 12, 2023.

The petitioners accepted the amount "without prejudice" and filed the instant petition seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act, claiming the assessed amount was unfair.

Whether an Arbitrator can be appointed under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1947 Act to determine compensation for a period during which the State’s possession was deemed wrongful or without authority of law.

The court primarily applied Section 11 of the 1947 Act, which provides for the appointment of a District Judge as an Arbitrator when compensation for requisitioned premises cannot be fixed by agreement.

It further applied Section 14A of the 1947 Act, which restricts the revision of existing rent to specific criteria, such as changes in market value or municipal taxes, and caps such increases at 10%.

Crucially, the court relied on the precedent of Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. vs. W.B. Mineral Development and Others (2021) 14 SCC 528, which established that Section 11(1)(b) only applies to compensation during a lawful period of requisition and not for illegal occupation after the requisition period ends.

The Court reasoned that the statutory mechanism for appointing an Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) is limited to premises that are validly "requisitioned under this Act".

In this case, the coordinate bench in WP/61/2017 had already determined that the requisition lapsed on March 31, 1992, rendering the occupation by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation "palpably wrongful and/or illegal" thereafter.

Applying the Punalur Paper Mills precedent, the Court held that since the occupation was no longer under the authority of the 1947 Act but was extra-legal, the summary arbitration procedure prescribed in the Act could not be invoked for that period.

Furthermore, the Court noted that revision of rent under Section 14A is a distinct process from the initial fixation of compensation; since the initial rent was already fixed by an award in 2007, there was no statutory basis to re-appoint an arbitrator for the subsequent "revision" period while the property was held without legal authority.

The prayer for a mandamus to appoint an Arbitrator for the period from April 1, 1992, to January 12, 2023, was refused. The writ petition was dismissed.