BANARSI LAL Vs. CUSTODIAN GENERAL, EVACUEE PROPERTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil miscellaneous second appeal under the provisions of the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act against the order of the Custodian General modifying the order of the Custodian.

(2.) IT appears that the property in question was declared evacuee property as far back as 1949. The respondent applicant Taj Din applied to the Custodian for restoration of the property on the ground that he had never migrated to Pakistan and his property was wrongly declared as evacuee property. The Custodian, after holding an inquiry found that the property in question did belong to Taj Din who had not gone to Pakistan and therefore it should be restored to him. The Custodian, however, found that by the time the application was made before him for restoring the property, a house by the Custodian Department had already been built on the vacant land and he, therefore, persuaded the respondent to accept compensation for the land only. The respondent accepted the offer made by the Custodian, but at the same time filed an appeal before the Custodian General The Custodian General rightly pointed out that since a house had already been built on a Major portion of the land which belonged to Taj Din and which was not evacuee property, the only reasonable manner in which the matter could have been compounded was to hand over the house to him on payment of the cost assessed. He accordingly reversed the order of the Custodian and directed the house to be handed over to the real owner. This appeal has been filed by the tenant who is now sought to be evicted as a result of the transfer of the house to Taj Din.

(3.) IN this case the matter in dispute arose purely between the Custodian and the respondent. The lessee had the right to remain in possession so long as the real owner did not turn up. As soon as the property was to be returned to the real owner, the lessee ceased to have any right and the only thing that he could have insisted upon was that he should be given a notice in accordance with the Evacuees property Rules before he could be evicted. This was admittedly done in the present case. The lessee...................therefore, in our opinion has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Custodian General in favour of the respondent which was arrangement between the Custodian and the real owner and the lessee had no right to disturb this arrangement. As, however, the lessee has been in possession of the house for a few years, the respondent has consented that four months time may be allowed to the lessee to vacate the promises.