S JAGJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These eight appeals are filed by the tenants allotees against the order of the Single Judge passed on March 12, 1970, dismissing their writ petitions. The appeals are primarily directed against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelling their allotment on the ground of habitual default in payment of rent. The orders were passed under section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954 read with Rule 102(d) of the Rules framed under the said Act.

(2.) The appellants were inducted as tenants, on various dates in 1947, by the then Sikh owners of property known as 7, Jantar Man- tar Road, New Delhi. 3/5 share of the property was sold to some Muslims in 1951, who were later on declared as evacuees. That share, therefore, vested in the Custodian in 1953. The other 2/5 share was acquired in 1956. The entire property went under the control of the Managing Officer in 1956, and the appellants became allottees under section 14 of the Act. In 1959. 7 Jantar Mantor Road was transferred by private negotiations to A.I.C.C. There is some dispute as to who is the real owner of the property A.I.C.C. or the Government. One fact is clear that till this day no sale-deed (or sale certificate) is made in favour of the A.I.C.C. One of the contentions of the appellants is that A.I.C.C. is illegally using the government machinery under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 to evict them. We are told that some suits we're also filed claiming ownership of the suit property by two factions of the Congress party. However, for the purposes of this appeal we assume that the property is still in the compensation pool as no sale deed (or sale certificate) has yet been made in favour of the A.I.C.C.

(3.) The appellants can be divided in two main groups. Those against who eviction proceedings were started by giving show cause notice under section 19 read with Rule 102(d) and the allotments cancelled. And those against whom, initially, proceedings were started to recover the arrears of rent by a coercive process under section 21, but afterwards, orders of cancellation of allotments were passed. Admittedly, in the second case, show cause notices under rule 102(d) were not given. Notices of demand of arrears of rent were also not given to any of these eight appellants. Some of these eight appellants had ascertained registered claims in their favour. The claims of arrears of rent are for the period between 1947 to 1961-62. Some of them immediately paid the arrears after the proceedings were started. Others who had a registered claim requested for adjustment against their claim. The current rent is being deposited in the court under the orders of the Bench admitting the appeals. The learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions, recorded the following findings