1962 (2) TMI 134 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed, trial judge's order set aside. Suit dismissed, parties bear own costs. Status quo maintained for one month.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the trial judge's order. The suit was dismissed, with parties to bear their own costs. The court directed the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the order dated 30th April 1955 under Section 12A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.2. Jurisdiction of the Custodian to review the order.3. Legality of the subsequent orders dated 18th January 1957 and 11th February 1958.4. Right of the plaintiff to seek a declaration and consequential relief.5. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to challenge the orders.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Order Dated 30th April 1955:The primary issue was whether the order dated 30th April 1955 under Section 12A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, was valid. The court found that the Custodian had transferred the business of Marina Hotel to the plaintiff, which included tenancy rights, furniture, and other assets. The court noted that the Custodian had not obtained the necessary approval from the Custodian General for the sale of the business, as required under Section 10(2) of the Act. Therefore, the order was deemed to be beyond the Custodian's powers and invalid. The court also pointed out that Section 12A applied only to cases where leasehold rights had vested in the Custodian and were subsequently leased to another, which was not the case here.2. Jurisdiction of the Custodian to Review the Order:The court examined whether the Custodian had the authority to review the order made by his predecessor. The plaintiff argued that Section 26 of the Act, which provided for review, had been repealed by Act 91 of 1956, and thus, the power of review was lost. However, the court held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applied, which saved pending proceedings, including the review application. The court also rejected the argument that the power to review was limited to the officer who made the original order, stating that the word 'own' in Section 26(2) was used to confine each officer within his own authority and did not restrict the power of review to the original officer.3. Legality of the Subsequent Orders Dated 18th January 1957 and 11th February 1958:The court upheld the validity of the subsequent orders made by the Custodian on 18th January 1957 and by the Custodian General on 11th February 1958. These orders had set aside the original order dated 30th April 1955, declaring it invalid. The court found that the Custodian had acted within his powers to review and set aside the earlier order, which was made without proper authority.4. Right of the Plaintiff to Seek a Declaration and Consequential Relief:The plaintiff sought a declaration that the order dated 30th April 1955 was valid and binding, and that he was the lawful tenant of the suit premises. He also sought to set aside the subsequent orders and prayed for an injunction. The court held that since the original order was invalid, the plaintiff could not claim any rights based on it. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to the declaratory or injunctive reliefs sought.5. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Challenge the Orders:The court addressed the argument that under Sections 28 and 46 of the Act, the orders made by the Custodian and Custodian General were final and could not be questioned in a Civil Court. The court held that in cases where an order made by a tribunal or authority of limited jurisdiction is without jurisdiction or a nullity, the Civil Court has the authority to challenge such orders. Therefore, the court had the jurisdiction to hear the case and determine the validity of the orders.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned trial judge was set aside. The suit was dismissed, with the parties directed to bear their own costs. The court ordered that the status quo be maintained for one month from the date of the judgment.