S. BENJAMIN Vs. EBRAHIM ABOOBAKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for an appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the respondent, the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, from giving effect to a notice of demand dated the August 10, 1953.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the determination of this petition are few. By an order dated October 23, 1951, the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property notified as evacuee property the following: Right, title and interest of Shree Husein Aboobakar in the business concern called Nishat Talkies with furniture, fittings and certain machines etc. together with the tenancy right situated at Grant Road, Bombay. The case of the petitioner is that he was a partner with Husein Aboobaker and Alimahomed Aboobaker in the said business and that Husein Aboobaker and Alimahomed Aboobaker retired from the partnership and received Rs. 15,000 each in full satisfaction of their share, right, title and interest and he became the sole proprietor of that business. This contention of the petitioner was apparently not accepted by the Custodian and the declaration that I have referred to relating to the evacuee property was made.

(3.) NOW , a preliminary objection has been raised on this petition on behalf of the Custodian, it being urged that there is an adequate and specific legal remedy under the Evacuee Property Act, viz. a revision against this order, end therefore an application for a writ should not be entertained. The petitioner challenges the order on the ground that there is want of jurisdicticn in the Custodian to determine what is due to him ; but Mr. Kantawala for the respcndent points out that that is not sufficient to entitle the petitioner to a writ and unless there is a violation of the fundamental principles of justice a writ should not be granted as there is a provision for a revision. As I will point out later, in the view that I take of this case, the order is contrary to the fundamental principles of justice, and I would therefore entertain the application notwithstanding the fact that there might be another remedy under the Evacuee Property Act.