UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAQSOOD AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises questions under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The short facts necessary to appreciate the questions in issue are as follows;

(2.) After the partition of the country, various States had enacted laws for the custody and the administration of evacuee property. Under the Bombay Act the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property declared Abdul Rashid Khan and S. A. Quraishi evacuees and on 10th January 1950, took charge of the business, the tenancy rights and stock-in-trade of 'Marina Hotel' belonging to them. It seems that at the relevant time in the suit premises the evacuees had about five lodgers, from these lodgers the evacuees were recovering a sum of Rs. 905 though they were paying actual rent of Rs. 555-12-0 per month, On 17th January 1950 the Deputy. Custodian of Evacuee Property entered into an arrangement with the lodgers to the ettect that they should together pay him consolidated rent of Rs. 555-12-0 and an additional amount of 20 per cent, over the entire collections which the evacuees were collecting from these lodgers which came to a sum ot Rs. 181, as, what he called, 'establishment charges'. The rest of the liabilities in the form of light Bills, gas bills and sweeper charges were to be disbursed directly by the lodgers. This arrangement seems to have continued up to end of about March 1955, when the plaintiff approached the Custodian of the Evacuee Property with a request war the entire business should be allollad to him. Some of the lodgers were in arrears which he undertook to pay. This letter was written on 31st March 1955. Ultimately the Custodian acceded to the request made by the plaintiff and assigned the entire business along with the tenancy rights to the plaintiff on 25th April 1955. inereatter on 30th April 1955 he made a declaration under section 12-A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, then in force, absolving himself from all responsibility with respect to the tenancy rights in respect of the properly which he mentioned in the Schedule.

(3.) Immediately after this order v/as made, one Monsin Abdulla, who was then a lodger along with the plaintiff, made an application for revision of this order to the same authority and also a review application of this order. At this time it may be mentioned that the then Custodian had retired and a new one came in his place. Immediately this application was made, Mr. Godbole, who was then the Custodian, issued an order directing the landlord not so give effect to the order made on 30th April 1955 by his predecessor. Ultimately the Custodian decided the review application on 18th January 1957 in which he held that the order made by his predecessor was invalid and therefore he set it aside. Against this order in review, the plain-tiff went in revision to the Custodian General under Section 27 of the Act. His application was rejected on 11th February 1958 after hearing the plaintiff, Mohsin Abdulla and all the other lodgers who were lodging in the premises.