The Custodian's power to review an order under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, is not limited to the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and can be exercised either suo motu or on an application of a person aggrieved by the order.

Headnote:
ADMINISTRATION OF EVACUEE PROPERTY ACT, 1950 - SECTIONS 10(2)(O), 12-A, 26 - REVIEW - VALIDITY OF ORDER - JURISDICTION OF CUSTODIAN - TRANSFER OF BUSINESS - LEASEHOLD RIGHTS - SCOPE OF REVIEW POWER - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a lodger in the Marina Hotel, sought a declaration that an order under Section 12-A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, absolving the Custodian from all responsibility with respect to the tenancy rights in the hotel premises, was valid and binding. The plaintiff also challenged the validity of subsequent orders setting aside the initial order and directing the landlord not to give effect to it.
Finding of the Court:

1. The order under Section 12-A was invalid as it purported to transfer a running business, which was a sale and not a mere transfer for running the hotel with retention of control in the Custodian. 2. The condition for the exercise of power under Section 12-A was not satisfied as the leasehold rights of the evacuee had not vested in the Custodian and no lease had been granted by him to the plaintiff. 3. The Custodian had the power to review his own order, and the review power was not limited to the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. The review power could be exercised either suo motu or on an application of a person aggrieved by the order. 5. The plaintiff's argument that Moshin Abdulla, who had applied for the review, had no right to do so because he was not in occupation of the property and his rights were not affected, was rejected as it was not raised in the plaint and the evidence showed that Moshin Abdulla's rights were affected.
Issues: 1. Whether the order under Section 12-A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, was valid. 2. Whether the Custodian had the power to review his own order. 3. Whether the review power was limited to the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. Whether the review power could be exercised only suo motu or also on an application of a person aggrieved by the order. 5. Whether Moshin Abdulla had the right to apply for the review.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The transfer of a running business under the guise of a transfer for running the hotel with retention of control in the Custodian was a sale and not a mere transfer, making the order under Section 12-A invalid. 2. The condition for the exercise of power under Section 12-A was not satisfied as the leasehold rights of the evacuee had not vested in the Custodian and no lease had been granted by him to the plaintiff. 3. The Custodian had the power to review his own order, and the review power was not limited to the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. The review power could be exercised either suo motu or on an application of a person aggrieved by the order. 5. Moshin Abdulla had the right to apply for the review as his rights were affected by the order.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order made by the trial judge was set aside, and the suit was dismissed. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Judgment

1. This appeal raises questions under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The short facts necessary to appreciate the questions in issue are as follows;

2. After the partition of the country, various States had enacted laws for the custody and the administration of evacuee property. Under the Bombay Act the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property declared Abdul Rashid Khan and S. A. Quraishi evacuees and on 10th January 1950, took charge of the business, the tenancy rights and stock-in-trade of Marina Hotel belonging to them. It seems that at the relevant time in the suit premises the evacuees had about five lodgers, from these lodgers the evacuees were recovering a sum of Rs. 905 though they were paying actual rent of Rs. 555-12-0 per month, On 17th January 1950 the Deputy. Custodian of Evacuee Property entered into an arrangement with the lodgers to the ettect that they should together pay him consolidated rent of Rs. 555-12-0 and an additional amount of 20 per cent, over the entire collections which the evacuees were collecting from these lodgers which came to a sum ot Rs. 181, as, what he called, establishment charges. The rest of the liabilities in the form of light Bills, gas bills and sweeper charges were to be disbursed directly by the lodgers. This arrangement seems to have continued up to end of about March 1955, when the plaintiff approached the Custodian of the Evacuee Property with a request war the entire business should be allollad to him. Some of the lodgers were in arrears which he undertook to pay. This letter was written on 31st March 1955. Ultimately the Custodian acceded to the request made by the plaintiff and assigned the entire business along with the tenancy rights to the plaintiff on 25th April 1955. inereatter on 30th April 1955 he made a declaration under section 12-A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, then in force, absolving himself from all responsibility with respect to the tenancy rights in respect of the properly which he mentioned in the Schedule.

3. Immediately after this order v/as made, one Monsin Abdulla, who was then a lodger along with the plaintiff, made an application for revision of this order to the same authority and also a review application of this order. At this time it may be mentioned that the then Custodian had retired and a new one came in his place. Immediately this application was made, Mr. Godbole, who was then the Custodian, issued an order directing the landlord not so give effect to the order made on 30th April 1955 by his predecessor. Ultimately the Custodian decided the review application on 18th January 1957 in which he held that the order made by his predecessor was invalid and therefore he set it aside. Against this order in review, the plain-tiff went in revision to the Custodian General under Section 27 of the Act. His application was rejected on 11th February 1958 after hearing the plaintiff, Mohsin Abdulla and all the other lodgers who were lodging in the premises.

4. After this failure, on 20th August 1958, the plaintiff instituted the present suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the order under Section 12-A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act dated 30th April 1955 was valid and binding on the Custodian and that the plaintiff was the lawful tenant of the suit premises, secondly that the orders dated 18th January 1957 and 11th February 1958 of the Custodian and the custodian General were ultra vires, illegal, null and void and ot no effect and prayed that they should be set aside and thirdly he prayed for consequential relief of injunction.

5. The learned trial Judge held that the orders made in the review petition were without jurisdiction and that the order under Section 12-A dated 30th April 1955 was valid. In consequence he issued injunction against the defendants.

6. It will be desirable to take up first the question as to whether or not the order dated 30th April 1955 under Section 12-A of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document