MATU RAM Vs. KISHAN PARSHAD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and decree, dated August 24, 1965, of a learned Single Judge, the facts are no longer a matter of controversy.

(2.) AN urban plot of land was taken on lease by Defendant Sham Lal, father of Kishan Parshad, Respondent, from Ali Bakhsh for a period of twenty -five years under a lease deed, Exhibit D. 22,, of June 24, 1928. On the death of Ali Bakhsh, his heirs executed a fresh lease deed, Exhibit D, 21, on December 9, 1929, for the remaining period of twenty -four years in favour of Sham Lal. Later Jamal Khan and others became owners of two -third share in the land, and, on January 17, 1947, they executed another lease deed, Exhibit D 8 as respects their share, in favour of Sham Lal. The earlier lease deed, Exhibit D, 21, of December 9, 1929, being for a period of twenty -four years, was to expire on June 23, 1953, reckoning the original period of twenty -five years as in the lease deed, Exhibit D. 22, of June 24. 1928. So the lease deed executed by Jamal Khan and others of their two -third share in the plot on January 17, 1947, Exhibit D. 8, was made operative from June 24. 1953, and for a period ending June 23, 1973. It has been said that as the period given in the lease deed, Exhibit D. 22. of June 24, 1928, as later on confirmed by the heirs of Ali Bakhsh by the lease deed, Exhibit D. 21, of December 9, 1929, had not expired by January 17, 1947, their was no occasion for Jamal Khan and others to execute a lease deed qua their two -third share of the plot much before the expiry of that lease and making the new lease operative from June 24, 1953, for another period of twenty years up to June 23, 1973, but it was open to Jamal Khan and others to further lease their share of the plot from a future date from which the earlier lease was to expire and there is nothing in law which renders that lease not a valid lease.

(3.) THE Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act 44 of 1954), hereinafter referred as 'the Compensation Act', came into force on October 9, 1954. Sub -section (1) of Section 12 of this Act says that if the Central Government is of the opinion to acquire any evacuee property for a public purpose, it may do so at any time by publishing in the Official Gazette a notification to the effect that it has decided to acquire such property in pursuance of this section, and Sub -section (2) then reads - -"on the publication of a notification under Sub -section (1), the right, title and interest of any evacuee in the evacuee property specified in the notification shall, on and from the beginning of the date on which the notification is so published be extinguished and the evacuee property shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances". A notification acquiring the plot in question by the Central Government was issued sometime about October, 1955, the effect of which was that the right, title and interest of the evacuees in the plot in question has come to vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The Managing Officer came to administer this property under the provisions of the Compensation Act and even to him the Defendant, Sham Lal, continued to pay the rent for the lease, the last receipt, Exhibit D. 2, being, dated June 14, 1961, for the period ending September 15. 1960.