FASI UDDIN Vs. LAKSHMI NARAIN VAISH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is judgment defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's father was a tenant of the shop in dispute in 1957. The tenant migrated to Pakistan. Since then, the defendant took possession of the shop. He was a trespasser. The plaintiff filed the present suit for possession and recovery of rent at the rate of Rs. 10.00 per month. In defence, it was stated that the defendant's father was a tenant at Rs. 3.00 per month. He had gone to Pakistan temporarily without any intention to settle down there. His father continued to be a citizen of India. The tenancy was in continuance. He was in possession on behalf of his father. He pleaded that the plaintiff could not sue for ejectment, without terminating the tenancy. The trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court has, however, decreed it. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's father migrated to Pakistan prior to 1st Feb., 1957, and, thereafter, he did not return. The suit was filed on 7th April, 1958. Since the defendant's father migrated to Pakistan, he was not entitled to claim any fundamental rights under Art. 19 of the Constitution. it was well settled that no foreigner has got a right to have property in India and therefore, the tenancy rights of the defendant's father in the shop in dispute automatically came to an end on his migration. He fixed the damages at Rs. 4.00 per month. the suit was therefore, decreed for possession as well as for damages.

(2.) The defendant has come to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) Under Sec. 7-A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, no property could be declared as evacuee property on or after the 7th day of May, 1954. It is nobody's case, nor there is any finding, that the property was even declared as an evacuee property. In the absence of any such declaration the rights of an evacuee could not vest in the Custodian, Evacuee Property. They would continue to remain with the erstwhile Evacuee. There is no definite finding that the defendant's father went to Pakistan to settle down there or with an intention not to come back to this country. It, therefore, cannot be said that he lost the citizenship of this country. But, assuming that he did : I am not aware of any provision in the Constitution that a person who was in possession of the property but who lost the citizenship subsequently, would lose all proprietary rights in this country. The lower appellate court has observed that it is a well settled principle that no foreigner has got any right to possess property, but no provisions no precedent has been cited. I am myself not aware of any such principle. I am, therefore, unable to uphold that finding.