Decided on September 02,1957

N.H. THADANI Appellant


A.N.Bhandari C.J. - (1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent raises the question whether the appellant is entitled to the special protection afforded by Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Act, 1954. This section is in the following terms :- "29 (1) Where any person to whom the pro visions of this section apply, is in lawful posses sion of any immovable property of the class notified under Sub-section (2) which is trans ferred to another person under the provisions of this Act, then notwithstanding anything con tained in any other law such person shall with out prejudice to any other right which he may have in the property, be deemed to be a tenant of the transferee on the same terms and condi tions as to payment of rent or otherwise on which he held the property immediately before the transfer * * * * Then follows a proviso which is not relevant for the decision of this case.
(2.) The facts of the case are simple and not in dispute. A bungalow known as Reay Villa situate at Mahableshwar, Bombay was notified as evacuee property in the year 1951 and was leased out to the appellant for a period of one year from 1-81952 at Rs. 3,750/- per annum. This rent was later reduced to Rs. 2, 500/- per annum. The lease was renewed from time to time and the final renewal took place for a period of three months from 1-1-1955 to 31-3-1955. In February 1955 the Central Government acquired this property under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and shortly thereafter the Regional Settlement Commissioner invited tenders for and on behalf of the President of India for the sale of the said property. One of the conditions of the sale was that the possession of the existing occupant will not be disturbed if he has been in occupation oft the property for three years and he would continue as an occupant of the purchaser subject to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force for control of rent and protection from eviction. The property was sold on 7-5-1955 to one Mr. K. J. Somaya for a sum of Rs. 51,000/- subject to the rights of the tenants, lessees and allottees of the Custodians if any.
(3.) The appellant submitted a number of petitions to the appropriate authorities against his eviction but a notice was finally given to him on 5-9-1955 to vacate the premises failing which coercive action would be taken against him. The appellant disregarded the notice and paid a sum of Rs. 575/- on account of rent on 26-91955 and a sum of Rs. 1,300/- on account of rent on 19-10-1955. The treasury accepted these payments as rent on behalf of the Regional Settlement Commissioner and issued receipts in respect thereof but the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee property declined to withdraw the notice of eviction and threatened to take coercive action under Section 19 (3) of the Act of 1954. The appellant accordingly presented a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed that the respondents be restrained from taking steps to evict the appellant from the bungalow in question. This petition came up for consideration before a learned Judge of this Court and was dismissed! on 27-111956. The appellant is dissatisfied with this order and has presented an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.