KHUSHAL SINGH Vs. RAMESHWAR DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule issued against Mr. Rameshwar Dayal, Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, and Mr. J. N. Shingal, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to them to restore the possession taken by them from the petitioners of shop No. 284 situate in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. (2) In support of the petition one of the petitioners put in an affidavit and in reply to this affidavit a document purporting to be an affidavit has been filed by Mr. Shingal. A joint written statement on behalf of Mr. Rameshwar Dayal and Mr. Shingal has also been put in. It is unfortunate that neither the affidavit nor the written statement is verified in the manner that these documents are required to be verified nor are the facts stated in the petitioners' affidavits definitely denied or clearly admitted and it is not quite clear what the version of these public officers is. According to the affidavit of the petitioner, they arrived from Rawalpindi in the month of September 1947 and occupied shop No. 284 which was lying vacant at the time and possession of which had been given up by respondent No. 3, Hafiz Mohammad Usman. They took the shop on lease from Qamar-ud-Din, the owner of the shop -- 'hafiz Mohammad usman respondent No. 3 being only the tenant -- for a period of one year at Rs. 130/- per mensem. Certain other facts are proved by the documents placed on the file by Hafiz Mohammad usman and by the petitioners, although they are not specifically mentioned in the petition of the petitioners itself. On 6-10-1947 Lakhmir Singh filed, what is termed, an occupation report in regard to this shop in which he had shown that he had taken possession of this shop on 28-9-1947. 3. It appears that some time later the petitioner apprehended that the shop in dispute was going to be allotted to somebody else and they therefore took an appeal to the District Judge under section 6 (2) of the East Punjab Ordinance (Ordinance 4 of 1947) as extended to Delhi under section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act and Section 3 of Ordinance 23 of 1947. The grounds taken in this appeal are of some importance. The petitioners, who were appellants there, alleged that the shop was vacant when they took possession, that they had got into contact with the proprietor and had taken it on rent at Rs. 130/- per mensem the very next day, thus the proprietor accepted them as tenants and that as a precautionary measure they made an application to the Custodian, evacuee Property, on 6-10-1947 (the application I have referred to above), that the proprietor had started asking them for a 'pagree' (premium), and, therefore, the order passed by the custodian, probably of allotment to somebody else, was illegal, and they prayed that the order of allotment be set aside. They mentioned that they had not been able to get a copy of the order of the Custodian against which they wished to appeal in spite of every effort that they had made. This matter came up before the learned District Judge on 20-2-1948 and he dismissed the appeal. I give the order of the learned District Judge in estenso:

(2.) THE affidavit further shows that they tried to get into contact with the sub Inspector immediately after and also on the morning of the 27th but were unable to do so and they then went to the house of respondent No. 2 Mr. Shingal, at about 9-30 a. m. on the 27th February and they were told that the notice had been issued under the orders of respondent No. 1 Mr. Rameshwar Dayal, and that the petitioners were to remove their goods by 10 a. m. on that very day, i. e. , within half an hour, otherwise police force would be used and the shop would be forcibly taken possession of. A request, which was made to respondent No, 2 to stay action, so that legal advice may be taken, was refused. When asked under what law they were being ejected, respondent No. 2, according to the affidavit of the petitioners, stated, "local Administration Law". The petitioners then went to the house of the Chief Commissioner Delhi, but. he was not at home and they saw the home Secretary of Delhi State who stated that he knew nothing about the matter and that it was being dealt with by respondent No. 1. They then came to Chandni Chowk and there they found that the police were "occupying every space in the bazar and seemed to number quite a few hundreds". The locks of the shop were broken open and preparations had been made for removing the goods which were worth about a lac of rupees. Trucks were standing and labourers with baskets were also there and nobody was permitted to go near the place. The notice for ejectment was served on Lakhmir Singh at 12-15 on that day in the afternoon. The petitioners then went to the house of respondent No. 1 who kept them waiting till 3 p. m. They then sent in an application to respondentno. I through the orderly of respondent No. 1 and this application was returned at 3-15 p. m. with the remark. "to Shri Shingal". By that time the shop had been taken possession of and the petitioners had been dispossessed. The version given in the written statement of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is contained in paras. Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, which to say the least is most uninformative; facts are neither clearly brought out nor allegations made by the petitioners clearly denied nor is it stated what the version of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is. An affidavit has been filed by Mr. Shingal, which again is as perfunctory as it possibly could be end does not state what, according to this gentleman, actually happened. The affidavit begins as follows: