LexRAGHU NATH versus COMPETENT OFFICER, DELHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
851 RAGUU __ NATH 1'. COMPETENT OFFICER, DElHI & ORS. August 20, 1970. [J. M. SHELAT AND c. A. YAIDIAUI\GAM, JJ.] Administration of Evacuee Property Act (31 of 1950) 12 ministration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules 1950 ,: t~;nd Ad- custodicm to kase cmd c:twcel /ea.,·es-E,·ucw:e lnterrst '(S . ow)er of 5 I) I 0 d E rparatwn Act (64 of 19. of]i' s; wet ,~VIICIIL'e ,~nteresct (Separation) . Ru/,·s. r. liB- Competent cu- 1en 1e cw1 c ~rect ustotlian 1o ddil'er l'act~nl _ c sesnnn of mortgage/ property. pas The app~lla~t ~xecuted a usufructuary .mortgage of his house and con- tinued to rcs1dc In tt as a, tenant un~cr a lease obtained from the mortgagee· In 1949, the mortgagee left for Paktstan. He was declared an evacuee and his mortgagee interest in !h~ mgrtgaged property vested in the Custodian under s. 8 of the Adm101~tratton of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Under s. 12, the Custodian evicted the appellant and allotted it to others as D tenants. In spi t~ of demands by the appellant and the appellant tendering the mortgage amount, the Custodian refused to hand over vacant possl!:i- sion of the house to the appellant. The appellant applied 10 the Compc· tent Officer under the Evacuee T ntc·rest (Separation) Act, 1951. The Officer determined the mortgage debt due from the appell~nt and the appellant claimed vacant possession against tender of payment by him of the amount. The Olliccr rejected the claim _nnJ ordered the _sale of the pro- t pcrty undeT s.lO(b) ( ii) of the Scparauon Act, for sat1sfact1on of the mortgage debt. Thereafter, the appellant paid. the cn11re morl!!agc debt and the Competent Officer acccpled the mnount. . On thc question whether the app~lhmt w;~s cntitkd to v.a=ant pos>.::>- SIOn and have the order of sale sci u~1dc . F HELD · ( 1) Section 4 of the Adrninistralion of Evacuee Phropc1·rtY A . • . · IT •1 · •l•t1'on to any ot er aw et g1vcs to th'lt Act an ovcrwhng c cc 10 rc " f f fo• the iime b;ing in force, und hence the law unuc; .:h~n;~,~~r t~c Property set, is not applicable. Though s.l2 of rhe . 1 ·d bv ~im under Custodian to cancel an nllotment or a tcnanc~, ~r~,, c (Ccntr,l) 'Rules. r.l4(2) of the Administr;~_tion of Evacuee ropc~Jund justifying cvic· 1_950, the Custodian can. cv1ct a p~rson only on n~rgl or for :u~y violation G t1on of a tenant under a law rclalln!l tO' rent cTh. Custodian could not. o~ the conditions of the lea.~ or allotment. rt ~0 the :1ppdlant on his I ercforc, give vacant po,scss1on of the propel} H· s56 A·B D·fl lender of payment of the mortgage amount. !! ' · ' ' ' . 1951 was pa..;sed on (2) The Evacuee Interest (Separation) ,\ct, 10 ·rties'in which there account of the difficulty of administerin)l evacuc~ pd ro n.'Solve the hard- w~re both evacuee and non-evacuee mterf~u~~ properties being in tl;e I! •hlp felt by non-evacuees. who, by rcas~t" ~ obtain satisfaction °~ thc!r ~tssion of the custodinn were una . ~ 0 of that Act. But t ere 1 ' c ar~m in view of the prohibitive .Pr0':S1ons sub'e<:t to the power or no Provision bv which the eu.~to<.l,:m t'~ ~~~~bks lthe Competent Officer COntrol of the Competent Officer or w nc ~~ I , ·i1 ~· q l . ,. );· 'j ' , 'I !· ) II :.' : ,I ;: ·:1 'l! " il ,, ,, " ·: .:i : ' t ; ·.:! ., . 't i! 'I ·' ,, ( i . ·. •\: ~ Hi ! 'I ·. i ! .: ,, i , .. I • . . ::':d ·I :. ··' .t·. 852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [197l) 1 S.C.R. to pass an order which would curtail or otherwise affect the powers of A the Custodian. Though under s.lO(b)(i) of the Separation Act, the Q>mpctcnt Officer can pay to the Custodian the mortgage debt and redeem the mortgaged property, his power is subject to the rules made under that Act. [856 F-G; 858· B-C. G-HJ ( 3) Re.ading the rclevan t provisions narn~ l y, s. 12 of the AdminC.tra- tion of Evacuee Property Act and r. 14 of the Rules made thereunder and s. 10 of the Separation Act and r. llB of the rules made thereunder: B together, the position is : (i) that though the C<>mpetent Officer must accept the mortgage amount when tendered by a mortgagor and the mortgage debt is thereupon satisfied, he cannot ex~rcise the . power to redeem the mortgaged property and order the Custodian to deliver up its vacant possession to the mortgagor in the absence of any agreement bet- ween tlze mortgagor and the Custorlian; (ii) that the C<>mpetent Officer can order sale only for satisfaction of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.