Kapur, J. - (1.) This is a rule obtained by Attar Singh Bhasin against the Custodian Evacuee Property, Simla, and two others praying that an order should issue against the respondent (No. 1) quashing the order passed by him leasing out the premises to Lajwanti respondent No. 3 and quashing the order passed by him ejecting the petitioner. Rule was issued by a Bench of this Court on 21-7-1953 and the Custodian and Lajwanti have shown- cause.
(2.) Elysium Hotel, Simla, is evacuee property and had been allotted to one Shiv Nath who is son of respondent No. 3 Lajwanti. The petitioner alleges that he was in occupation of set No. 23 of this hotel as a tenant since February 1950 and that he remained in occupation as a tenant directly under the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property, Simla, to whom he was paying rent directly. On 21-5-1953 an order was passed by the District Rent Officer, Simla, to the effect that the Custodian Punjab with the approval of the Punjab Government had allotted Elysium Hotel to Lajwanti and all persons who were residing in that hotel were directed to "settle their sub-tenancy terms with the lessee directly and they should pay their future rents to her with effect from 21-5-1953. The lessee has the right to keep tenants of her own choice and previous rent should be paid to this office." It is further alleged in this petition that the petitioner Attar Singh Bhasin "approached Lajwanti for executing the agreement of tenancy but she put him off", that he informed the Custodian's Department of all these facts but they kept silent, that Lajwanti made an application to the Authorised Deputy Custodian (the Deputy Commissioner) for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises, that no notice was given of this application to him, nor were the allegations disclosed to him, but an officer did go to the spot to hold enquiries and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to meet the allegations. He goes on to say that on 8-7-1953 he was informed by an Inspector of the Custodian's Department that the petitioner was to be ejected from the premises within three days and that he was offered an alternative accommodation in Sanjauli, a place which is unsuitable for his residence.
(3.) The petitioner's complaint is contained in para. 14 where he states that he was not given an opportunity before or after 21-5-1953 when premises were leased out to respondent No. 3 Lajwanti, that respondent No. 2 cannot order his ejectment, that this amounts to usurping the functions of a Civil Court and that the orders of the Custodian are 'mala fide' and have the effect of defrauding the Government of huge amounts of arrears due from Diwan Shiv Nath, the previous allottee, that the cancellation of allotment of the son on account of certain defaults and leasing out the premises to the mother is clearly a circumventing of the legal and moral position, that "the family is said to be connected with ministerial circles and that is why so much indulgence is being shown to them at Government expense.";