Revision and evacuee tenancy principles: refusal to interfere does not merge orders, and statutory occupancy rights do not vest automatically.

A revisional order under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act was treated as supervisory rather than appellate, so a refusal to interfere did not merge with or supersede the Custodian's original order; the Custodian's order therefore remained the operative order for writ challenge. On tenancy rights, a terminated tenancy left only a statutory tenancy or personal right to occupy, which was not an occupancy right vesting in the Custodian under the Act. Because the occupant was in possession under colour of title and not a mere trespasser, summary eviction was not justified. The discussion states that the eviction order could not stand on that legal basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of the Custodian was the effective and subsisting order capable of being challenged in writ proceedings, or whether it had merged in the revisional order of the Custodian General so as to affect jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the evacuee's statutory tenancy or personal right to occupy the premises vested in the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, and whether the petitioner could be summarily evicted.

Issue (i): Whether the order of the Custodian was the effective and subsisting order capable of being challenged in writ proceedings, or whether it had merged in the revisional order of the Custodian General so as to affect jurisdiction;

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act was held to be supervisory and discretionary, not appellate in character. The distinction between appeal and revision was treated as material: an appellate order confirms or replaces the order below, whereas a revisional order that merely refuses to interfere does not supersede the order under challenge. Section 28 only gave finality against further challenge in ordinary proceedings and did not determine which order remained operative. The doctrine of merger was therefore held inapplicable where the revisional authority dismissed the revision without setting aside or modifying the subordinate order.

Conclusion: The order of the Custodian remained the effective and subsisting order, and the writ challenge to that order was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the evacuee's statutory tenancy or personal right to occupy the premises vested in the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, and whether the petitioner could be summarily evicted.

Analysis: On the facts, the tenancy had been terminated by notice, and after termination the evacuee remained only a statutory tenant with a personal right to occupy. Such a right was held not to be an occupancy right within Section 18(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and therefore did not vest in the Custodian. The petitioner was also found to be in possession under colour of title, so he could not be treated as a mere trespasser liable to summary eviction under the Act. The Custodian's order proceeded on an erroneous view of the legal effect of the tenancy and the statute.

Conclusion: The statutory tenancy did not vest in the Custodian, and the summary order of eviction could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was unsuccessful because the challenged order remained operative, and on the merits the Custodian had acted on an incorrect legal basis in treating the tenancy rights as vested in him.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order that merely declines to interfere does not merge with or supersede the subordinate order, and a statutory tenancy or personal right to occupy premises does not constitute an occupancy right vesting in the Custodian under the evacuee property law.

---