MUNNALAL Vs. NAZIM (DIRECTOR) ECCLESIASTICAL DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Munnalal is a banker carrying on business as such, in a shop on Station Road Hyderabad, Deccan. He had leased the premises which consist of two shop rooms (Malgees) and a Motor Garage from one Doctor Ameer Hassan since deceased, at a monthly rent of Rs. 70 per month. These two shop rooms were sold subsequently by the deceased Doctor's heirs to the Anjuman -e -Islamia, Hyderabad, Deccan. The petitioner executed a fresh lease in favour of the Secretary, Anjuman -e -Islamia on 13th Amardad 1349 Fasli of course, the Motor garage is not included in this lease and there is no dispute in regard to that portion of the premises. It appears that the Secretary Anjuman e -Islamia on behalf of the Anjuman endowed these shops for public religious trust and had this property registered accordingly in the Ecclesiastical Department of Hyderabad, a department which looks after certain religious public trusts in this country. On the representation made by the Secretary of the Anjuman, the department called upon the petitioner to pay up the arrears of rent and to execute a fresh lease in accordance with the terms agreed to between the parties. The only important term of the agreement was as to the amount of the rent to be calculated at a higher rate from a certain date, the other terms of the lease continued as formerly. The respondent, Director (Nazim) Ecclesiastical Department, as it is alleged for failure to execute a fresh lease, and to pay the rent at proper periods contracted, and for non settlement of arrears of rent, and on allegations of subletting, directed an officer of his department to eject the petitioner from these premises. Thereupon two notices were issued on the petitioner on the same elite which were served on him by being posted on some part of the premises; the first one on 18th Bahman 1359 Fasli and Anr. a day later. The first notice was for a month and one served subsequently for a week. The petitioner contends that both the notices equally referred to the whole of the premises that is the two shops. The respondent contends that these notices are issued in respect of these two shops separately, and each deals with one shop only. It appears that on the termination of the week's notice, the office Bent out some subordinate officer to eject the petitioner. Thereupon a short period of few days was obtained by the petitioner from the Director of the department for vacating the premises. About the time when the period was about to expire the petitioner moved the High Court through his petition under disposal (lodged in the office on 11th January 1950) praying that an injunction may be issued against the Director restraining him from carrying out his order of ejectment. There was Anr. application for a similar interim order to be made pending the disposal of the application. This came up for first hearing before this Divisional Bench the following day that is on 12th January 1950 at about 3 p.m. On account of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the reasons stated therein an ex parte order was made calling upon the respondent to show cause on both these applications and an interim order was made restraining him from carrying out his order of ejectment. This order was made at about 3.30 P.M. that day. It appears from the statements made by the lawyers and the affidavit of the parties that the order was communicated at not earlier than the end of that day and was delivered at the office just at the closing time. There is a third application by the petitioner complaining that the orders of the High Court have not been carried out and in reply (supported by affidavit) it is claimed by the respondent that the ejectment of the petitioner to the extent of one front shop was carried out at about 1 P.M., that day and the whole proceedings to that extent including the punchnama was completed by 2.80 P.M. Respondent on the other hand complains that the petitioner should have informed the High Court when his petition was taken up for hearing at about 3 P.M. that ejectment has been accomplished at the time the petition was under disposal. It appears that there was some resistance in the ejectment proceedings. Punchnama was made and some of the articles in the front shop belonging to the petitioner were taken away and deposited in the Ecclesiastical Department for safe custody. Nor this particular incident that the articles were so deposited is availed of by the petitioner and he, therefore, argues that in fact no ejectment has been accomplished. It is argued that so long as his things are there with the respondent the possession could not be said to have been completed, and dispossession is, therefore, in the stage of being carried out to completion.

(2.) RESPONDENT appeared at the High Court on the next hearing through his lawyer Mr. Gopal Rao Ekbute (who has produced office files) and has put in his replies to the different applications accompanied by affidavits. The petitioner is represented by Raja Bahadur Bashesheear Nath and Shri Bishanber Dayal, Advocates. The parties by consent have argued the case without tendering any evidence so that to the extent of their proceedings we have to decide the facts on the present record which consists of the allegation, affidavits, inspection report and the files of the Ecclesiastical Department.

(3.) THE lawyers representing the parties have mostly confined their case to the arguments of law advanced as to the nature of the writs that may or may not issue, but as to the jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs on proper occasions no objection is raised. We, may, however, casually mention that the authority in the High Court to issue such writs is well established in the rules mentioned in the column: