Banarsi Lal vs Custodian General E.P.& others

This is a civil miscellaneous second appeal under the provisions of the Evacuee's (Administration of Property) Act against the order of the

Custodian General modifying the order of the Custodian.

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.

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 Evacuee's 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.

In these circumstances the appeal is dismissed with this observation that four months time is allowed to the lessee to vacate the house, falling

which he will be evicted in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.