CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY Vs. PUSHPA WATI
LAWS(J&K)-1993-5-6
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on May 21,1993

CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY Appellant
VERSUS
PUSHPA WATI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KHAN, J. - (1.)THE main point involved in this appeal is, whether the Custodian could have enhanced the rent of the allotted premise; unilaterally and without notice to respondent Learned Single judge has held against the custodian and hence this appeal.
(2.)RESPONDENT is the occupant of an evacuee property house situated at Rajinder Bazar, Jammu. The house was allotted to her husband who is no more. It appears that custodian passed order dated Sept. 6 1974 requiring renewal of lease of the premises at the revised rent of Rs. 160/ -PM. Respondent challenged this order in writ petition No : 147 which was allowed by impugned order under appeal. The LD Single Judge quashed the order of custodian and while disposing of the petition observed that respondent was not a trespasser and was entitled to step in to the shoes of her deceases husband as the right of the leasee is heritable. He, however, did not decide the plea regarding the applicability of the provisions of J&K Houses and shops Rent Control Act to the evacuee property.
(3.)APPELLANT is aggrieved of the judgment impugned on a number of counts. His case is that custodian possesses the power to revise the rent under sub -section (2) of Section 10 A of the Act without notice to the effected party and that LD Judge had fallen in error by observing that the right of respondents deceases husband was heritable, It is also argued that respondents petition was not entertainable as the Act provided an alternate remedy of appeal against the order impugned. LC for appellant placed reliance upon AIR 1956 J&K: 33, 1979 JKLR 179 and AIR 1954 Punjab : 327 in support of his case.
Mr Kotwal, on the other hand argued that custodian could not have unilaterally revised the rent at the back of respondent, more so in the face of section 10 -A of the Act. He also submitted that availability of alternate remedy could not operate as a bar in the present case as the writ petition stood admitted and finally heard.



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