9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the powers of a Custodian of Evacuee Property to cancel a lease granted by him under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. 2. Jurisdiction of the Custodian to issue directions under section 10 of the Act regarding movables in the possession of the appellants. 3. Effect of subsequent legislation on the powers of the Custodian to cancel leases and agreements. Analysis: 1. The case involved a question regarding the authority of a Custodian of Evacuee Property to cancel a lease granted by him under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. Initially, Tendolkar, J. held that section 12 of the Act only applied to leases granted by the evacuee and not by the Custodian. However, Chagla, C.J. and Dixit, J. later interpreted that section 12 applied whenever there was a lease concerning property belonging to the evacuee, regardless of whether it was granted by the evacuee or the Custodian. Subsequent legislation, the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1954, clarified that the term 'lease' includes a lease granted by the Custodian, thus affirming the Custodian's power to cancel leases, including those granted by himself. 2. The jurisdiction of the Custodian to issue directions under section 10 of the Act regarding movables in possession of the appellants was also disputed. Tendolkar, J. held that section 10 applied only to properties of the evacuee, and since the movables had become the property of the appellants through a sale, the Custodian had no authority to issue directions concerning them. This aspect was upheld by Chagla, C.J. and Dixit, J. The judgment clarified that the Custodian lacked authority under section 10 to issue directions regarding movables that were no longer evacuee property. 3. The subsequent legislation, the Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1954, introduced an Explanation to section 12 of the Act, explicitly stating that a 'lease' includes a lease granted by the Custodian. This retrospective amendment settled the issue regarding the Custodian's power to cancel leases, irrespective of whether they were granted by the evacuee or the Custodian. The judgment emphasized that the Custodian had the authority to cancel leases and agreements, including those granted by himself, as clarified by the amended section 12. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as the subsequent legislation confirmed the Custodian's power to cancel leases, and the Custodian lacked authority under section 10 to issue directions regarding movables that were no longer evacuee property. The judgment highlighted the impact of legislative amendments on the interpretation of statutory provisions and upheld the Custodian's authority to cancel leases and agreements under the Act.
|
