SANT RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-1975-5-31
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on May 23,1975

SANT RAM Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SMT. JAMUNA BAI V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
SODHI HARBAKSH SINGH V. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT [REFERRED = 64 PUN LR 6-7.9 13 AIR 1963 SC 963 = (1963) 1 SCR 196 16]
UPPER GANGES SUGAR MILLS LIMITED KHALIL UL RAHMAN VS. KHALIL UL RAHMAN:UPPER GANGES SUGAR MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED]
AMBA PRASAD VS. MOHABOOB ALI SHAH [REFERRED = (1964) 7 SCR 808 11]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BISHAN DEVI [REFERRED 6]
JAMNA BAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED =]



Cited Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. H V YAZDI [LAWS(CAL)-1978-1-11] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.RANGARAJAN - (1.)This judgment will also dispose of writ Petitions 1035 to 1038 of 1967.
(2.)It is sufficient to state the facts in C. W. 1034 of 1967. The petitioner (Sant Ram) as well as the other petitioners in the connected petitions claim to be occupants of five shops bearing municipal number 1/1147-51, situated on G. T. Road, Shahdara. which originally belonged to a Muslim owner Fazil Jamil. Fazil Jamil had leased the said property to Respondents 4 and 5 (Harkishan Lal Malhotra and Krishan Gopal Malhotra) by means of lease deed dated 8-3-1948, with effect from 5-12-1947, for a period of five years i. e until 5-12-1952. After Fazil Jamil migrated to Pakistan the property was notified as evacuee property and Respondents 4 and 5 and applied for confirmation of the lease to them by the Muslim, owner. They had sub-leased the shop No. 1/1147 to Parma Nand Talwar, shop No. 1/1149 to Puran Chand, shop No. 1/1150 to Kishan Singh. shop No I/ 1147-A to Sant Ram and shop No. 1/1148 to Harbans Lal.
(3.)The application by Respondents 4 and 5 to the Custodian for confirmation of the said lease under Section 40. of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. 1950 was initially rejected by the Assistant Custodian (J) on 18-11-1951 as barred by time. On appeal the authorised Deputy Custodian remanded the same to the Assistant Custodian for decision on merits, who by his order dated 27-10^-1953 confirmed the lease. The tenants of the property were also informed by the Assistant Custodian on 18-5-1954 about the confirmation of the lease. The petitioners' revision against the same was dismissed. It is also to be noted that Respondents 4 and 5, who are brothers, had completed the construction at their own cost (of Rs. 2700) and the properties had been given to them on lease on a mothly rent of Rs. 106/4.00. This sum had been authorised to be spent by the tenants of the Muslim owner (vide the Custodian's order dated 9-4-1954, page 163 of File No. 1/47/1151. Pt. II.). The Custodian had stated that the tenants had not got back anything out of these amounts either from the owners or the petitioners. It is common ground that Respondents 4 and 5 had not occupied any of the shops personally and that they were under the occupation of sub-tenants. The tenants (respondents Nos. 4 and 5) had being given the right to create subtenancies under the lease which they had got from the Muslim, owner.


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