1955 (11) TMI 46 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ.
3. Merger of orders in appellate and revisional jurisdictions.
4. Finality of orders under the Evacuee Property Act.
5. Interpretation of statutory tenancy and occupancy rights under the Evacuee Property Act.
6. Merits of the Custodian's order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petition:
The Advocate General contended that the petition was not maintainable as the final order to be challenged was that of the Custodian General, passed on April 10, 1954. The respondent argued that it was not necessary to challenge the Custodian General's order and that the order of the Custodian could be quashed by the High Court. The court held that the petition challenging the Custodian's order was maintainable since the Custodian's order was within the jurisdiction and could be quashed by the High Court.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Issue a Writ:
The Advocate General argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Custodian General, whose office was in Delhi. The court clarified that it had jurisdiction to quash the order of the Custodian, which was within its jurisdiction, and that the order of the Custodian General did not supersede the Custodian's order in a way that would affect the High Court's jurisdiction.

3. Merger of Orders in Appellate and Revisional Jurisdictions:
The court discussed the difference between appellate and revisional jurisdictions. It emphasized that in appellate jurisdiction, the appeal constitutes a continuation of the suit, whereas in revisional jurisdiction, the revisional court exercises its supervisory powers. The court concluded that the principles of merger applicable to appellate jurisdiction do not necessarily apply to revisional jurisdiction. The order of the lower court does not merge into the order of the revisional court unless the revisional court modifies or reverses the order.

4. Finality of Orders under the Evacuee Property Act:
The court examined Section 28 of the Evacuee Property Act, which states that orders made by the Custodian-General are final and cannot be questioned in any court. However, the court clarified that this finality pertains to ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts and does not imply that the Custodian General's order supersedes the Custodian's order for the purposes of judicial review.

5. Interpretation of Statutory Tenancy and Occupancy Rights:
The court held that a statutory tenancy is a personal right that does not vest in the Custodian. It examined the facts and concluded that upon the termination of the evacuee's tenancy, the evacuee became a statutory tenant. Section 18(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, which pertains to occupancy rights, does not cover statutory tenancy or personal rights to occupy premises. Therefore, the statutory tenancy of the evacuee did not vest in the Custodian.

6. Merits of the Custodian's Order:
The court found little merit in the Custodian's order. It noted that the tenancy of the evacuee terminated with the landlord's notice to quit, and the evacuee became a statutory tenant. The Custodian's order was based on an erroneous conception of law, as the tenancy rights could not vest in the Custodian. The court also accepted the petitioner's contention that he was in occupation under a color of title and could not be evicted as a trespasser by the Custodian's summary procedure.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court upheld the maintainability of the petition, affirmed its jurisdiction to quash the Custodian's order, clarified the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdictions, interpreted the finality of orders under the Evacuee Property Act, and found the Custodian's order to be legally erroneous.