LexRAJ BAHADUR KANWAR RAJ NATH AND OTHERS versus PRAMOD C. BHATT, CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·~ 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS RAJ BAHADUR KANWAR RAJ NATH AND OTHERS v. PRAMOD C. BHATT, CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY. I LB. K. MuKHERJEA C. J., VENKATARAMA AYYAR ana JAFER IMAM JJ.] 977 Evacuee Property-Lease granted by Custodian-Notice to can- cel-Custodian's power-Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950), s. 12(1). By s. 12, sub-s. 1, of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950) as amended by Act XLII of 1954, "not- withst:;nding anything contained in any other law for the time be- ing in force, the Custodian may cancel any allotment or terminate any lease or ainend the terms of any lease or agreement under which any evacuee property is held or occupied by a person, whether such allotment, lease or agreement was granted or entered into before or after the commencement of this Act". The respondent who was the Custodian of evacuee property gratned a lease to the appellants and subsequently issued a notice to them, among other things, calling upon them to show cause why the lea:-c should not be cancelled for committing breaches of the condi- tions on which the prop~rties had been leased to them. The appel- lants contended that the respondent had no power to cancel the lease on the ground that under s. 12( 1) of the Act the power of the Custodian to cancel the lease could be exercised only so as to over- ride a bar imposed by any law but not the contract ~nder which the lease was held and relied on the language of the non-obstante clause contained in the section. Held, that the operative portion of the section which confers power on the Custodian to cancel a lease is unqualified and absolute and could not be abridged by reference to the non-obstante clause which was only inserted ex abundanti cautela with a view to repel a oossible contention that the section does not by implication repeal •tatutes conferring rights on lessees. Observations in Aswini Kumar Chose v. Arabinda Bose ([1953] ».C.R. I, 21, 24) and Dominion of India v. Shrinbai A. Irani ([1955] I S.C.R. 206, 213), on the scope of a non-obstante clause. •die•.! on. C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Civil Appeal No. 205 of 1954. On appeal from the judgment and order dated the 1955 N001mber 10. !955 Rai Bahatlur Kanwar Rqj }lath and olherJ v. Prarnod C. Bhatt, CUJtodian of Evacuee Prop.·rty 978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] 13th April 1954 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 49 of 1954 arising out of the order dated the 31st day of March 1954 of the said High CoUrt exer- cising its Ordinary Original Jurisdiction in Misc. Petitien No. 55 of 1954. K. T. Desai, P. N. Bhagruati, Rameshwar Nath and Rajinder Narain, for the appellants. C. K. Daphtary, Silicitor-General of India, (Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, with him), for. the res- pondent. 1955. November 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-This appeal raises a question as to the powers of a Custodian of Evacuee Property to cancel a lease granted by him unrkr sec- tion 12 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (XXXI of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Messrs Abdul Karim and Brothers owned, along with certain other properties which are not the sub- ject-matter of the present appeal, three mills with bungalows and chawls at Ambernath in Thana Dis- trict and the Bobbin Factory at Tardeo in , Bombay. They have migrated to Pakistan, these properties were declared by a notification dated 12-9-1951 issued under section . 7 of the Act as evacuee property, and under section 8 ( 1) of the Act, they became vested in the respondent as the Custodian for the State. The appellants are displaced persons, and on JQ.:8-1952 the respondent entered into an agreement with them, Exhibit A, which is, as aptly characterised by learned counsel for the appellants, of a composite character, consisting of three distinct matters. There was, firstly, a demise under which the mills and the factory in question were leased to the appeallants for a period of five years on the terms and conditions set out there- in. Secondly, there was a sale of the stock of raw materials, unsold finished goods, spare parts, cars, trucks and other movables which were in the mills and the factory, with elaborate provisions for the determination and payment of the price therefor in 2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 979 due course.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.