BRAHM VASUDEVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be a displaced person, who came to India along with his father late Shri H. D. Vasudeva as a refugee and was registered on 13th November, 1947 as a refugee with the Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation Government of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated on 6th June, 1998 passed by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property of Mumbai in his Appeal No. EVP/appeal /no. 1/98 filed against the order passed by the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Mumbai on 16th March, 1998 holding that the petitioner was in an unauthorised and illegal possession of 2/3rd portion of the office premises and directing him to hand over the said office premises for the use as the office of the said authority, as it was facing problem for office premises. The main or the only ground on which both the authorities passed the impugned orders against the petitioner, was the alleged breach of terms of the conditions of the allotment of the accommodation, originally given to the father of the petitioner on 2nd March, 1950. The alleged breach of the condition was Clause (c) which reads as "you undertake not to sub-let the premises or assign right title or interest therein to any other person". The said allotment letter was addressed to the Managing Director, National Security Assurances Company Ltd. , and there were in all four terms mentioned in the said letter, including the term or the condition quoted hereinabove. According to the authorities, the allotment of the premised was made to Managing Director of the company and not to the late Shri H. D. Vasudeva, in his personal capacity. The authorities objected after about 40 years that the said transfer of the premises by the company in the name of Shri H. D. Vasudeva amounted to breach of the condition quoted hereinabove. It was the contention of the authorities that the premises were allotted to the company and not to Shri H. D. Vasudeva in his personal capacity. Since the company had committed breach of the above condition, the authorities became entitled to resume the premises and cancel the allotment.

(2.) TO appreciate the contentions of both the sides, it would be necessary for us to peep in the history of the facts. As I have already stated that on 13th November, 1947, late H. D. Vasudeva was registered as a refugee with the Government of India. By his letter dated 18th January, 1950, on the letterhead of this company i. e. , National Security Assurances Company Ltd. Shri H. D. Vasudeva requested the Custodian of Evacuee Property for allotment of the suit premises. In the said letter late H. D. Vasudeva had narrated as to how he was holding the position as the Managing Director of the said company in Pakistan and how he came to India as refugee after partition and requested for allotment of office premises in Bombay. In response to the said letter, the authorities promptly allotted a portion of the office premises i. e. suit premises in Bombay on the conditions stipulated in the said letter. By a letter dated 11th April, 1950, Sir Currimbhoy Ibrahim Baronatcy Trust 1913, requested the Managing Director to pay monthly rent for the said premises to the trust. In response thereto, the Managing Director agreed to pay the amount of rent. By a letter dated 9th September, 1959, in response to the request made by the company, the Trust had transferred the premises in the personal name of Shri H. D. Vasudeva. It is on record that even the custodian of evacuee property had issued rent receipts in the name of Shri H. D. Vasudeva. By a letter dated 22nd June, 1981, the custodian addressed a letter to Shri H. D. Vasudeva directing him to pay rent upto the date to the said authority. Accordingly it appears from the record that the said authority received the rent from Shri H. D. Vasudeva on and from 19th September, 1981. (Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has shown me all the old rent receipts in original which stand in the personal name of Shri H. D. Vasudeva ).

(3.) IT appears that by a notice dated 8th August, 1991, the Resident Deputy Collector, Mumbai and Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property (hereinafter referred to as the custodian) issued a notice to Shri H. D. Vasudeva that he should vacate the premises which were given to him on lease for 10 years and the lease had come to an end in 1970. Thereafter, correspondence appeared to have been exchanged between the parties. Meanwhile, it appears that Shri H. D. Vasudeva expired and his only son Shri Brahma Vasudeva was representing him before the authorities. He denied the claim of the authorities that there was any breach of the term of allotment and pleaded that he himself was also refugee as he had come along with his father to India when he was 11 years old. He also claimed to be entitled to allotment of the said premises besides being the only legal heir of the late Shri H. D. Vasudeva.