YUSUF Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the issuance of notice of eviction issued to the petitioners under Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1954, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) ; issued by the Managing Officer and which has been affirmed by the authorities including the Central Government acting under Section 33 of the Act.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 was in occupation of property No. 946 while petitioner No. 2 Was in occupation of property No 945. It is alleged in the petition that auction of the property took place on 22nd June 1957 and the portion bearing the No. 946 was purchased at the public auction by respondent No. 2, Budha Bai and portion bearing No. 945 was purchased by another person, Shri Ganga Dhar. It is further alleged that on 16th November, 1957, the Managing Officer wrote to petitioner No. 1 that the provisional possession of the property bearing No. 946 has been given to respondent No. 2 and that he should pay the rent to her with effect from 21st September, 1957. A notice was received by petitioner No I in which he was asked to pay the rent as a tenant to respondent No: 2, The petitioner states that he started paying the rent to respondent No. 2 eversince. It is also stated that with effect from 22nd October 1958 the rate of the rent was enhanced at Rs. 10/ par month (previously it Used tobeRs.8/PM.),andthatthesame rent has been paid by him to respondent No. 2. The same situation continued right upto 1968 when the petitioner received a notice from the Managing Officer alleging that he had parted the possession of the premises No. 946 to petitioner No, 2 and asking him to show cause why his tenancy should not be cancelled. The cause was shown by petitioner No. 1 and ultimately the Managing Officer by his order dated 10th June 1963 held that petitionr- No. 1 who was previously living in premises No. 946 had shifted to premises No. 945 and petitioner No. 2 who was previously living in premises No, 945 had shifted to premises No. 946. It was further held that this change amongst petitioners 1 and 2 had taken place after the property had been parchased by respondent No. 2 and after provisional possession had been issued to her. The managing Officer held that petitioner No. 1 had parted with possession of premises No. 946 and petitioner No. 2 was an unauthorised occupant of premises No. 946 and consequently both were liable to be evicted from premises No. 946- It is relevant to mention that we are not concerned in this petition with premises No. 945. The petitioner filed appeal and further revision but the same were dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and ultimately the revision before the Central Government also. failed, It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Cause has been shown by the respondents who have filed their respective rejoinders. It is not disputed that provisional possession has been transferred to respondent No. 2 nor has it been disputed that the department asked petitioner No. 1 to attorn to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has also filed her affidavit and has not denied that the rent had been enhanced from Rs, 8 to Rs. 10 and that petitioner No. 1 has been paying rent to her ever-since 1952. It is further stated in the written-statement that the mere fact of provisio possession having been given to respondent No 2 does not mean that the Central Government has no jurisdiction to act in respect of the eviction of petitioners 1 and 2 from the premises in dispute. It is further alleged that till the property is transferred by means of a sale deed the jurisdiction of the Central Government under the Act and the Rules will remain and can be exercised against petitioner No. 1.