( 1 ) [suit property was an evacuee property. Smt. Ganga Devi on 27. 1. 1951 applied for its allotment to her. It was allotted to her on 29. 3. 51. In 2 survey reports of 17. 8. 51 and 29. 12. 51 she is described as allottee. The property was auctioned in 1964 in favour of respondent and he was granted sale certificate on 22. 3. 1965. The allottee did not make any payment to the respondent and thus lost the protection of S. 29 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Act 1954. Respondent sued her for possession claiming her only as a licensee. Trial Court Court dismissed the suit. In appeal District Judge held that Smt. Ganga Devi was a mere allottee and not a tenant and that she having failed to comply with the provisions of Sec ion 29 she was liable to eviction. He granted a decree for possession. Ganga Devi appealed against the said judgement. She died during the pendency of the appeal and her legal representatives were brought on record. High Court dismissed the appeal. Paras 8 to 14 of the judgement are :-

( 2 ) IT is obvious that Ganga Devi originally asked for allotment and the order of the Custodian also was making allotment to her. At no time w