The rights of a transferee of evacuee property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and the circumstances under which such a transferee can evict a person in possession of the property.

JUDGMENT :- These are two defendant's second appeals directed against the judgment and decrees of the District Judge of Chamba, who disposed of two appeals by the same judgment as common questions of law and fact arose. The plaintiffs-respondents are transferees of the rights of the Central Government in evacuee property which had vested absolutely in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances, under the provisions of Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. They came to Court with a claim of absolute ownership of the plots of land in dispute based upon a permanent allotment to which the provisions of Rule 58 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, applied. This rule lays down :-

"Where any person is allotted agricultural land under these rules, he shall, subject to the provisions of any local or special law fixing the ceiling of or otherwise regulating agricultural holdings be granted vacant possession of such land."

They alleged that the defendants are trespassers and sued for possession. The defendants pleaded that they had acquired tenancy rights in the land in dispute from the two evacuees, prior to 1947, and, thereafter, had continued as tenants of the Custodian of Evacuee Property. They also pleaded the bar of limitation against the plaintiffs, but they do not now deny the title of the plaintiffs acquired by virtue of a permanent allotment as mentioned above. All that the defendants now contend is that they have acquired tenancy rights which they set up against the plaintiffs. Both the Courts below had rejected the claim of the defendants to tenancy rights and had decreed plaintiffs' suit.

2. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has relied strongly on the following finding of the lower appellate Court interpreting the settlement entries :-

"So it means that it was after 1947 that the defendants came in possession as tenants and not that they have been cultivating the land as tenants for the last 40 or 45 years, that is to say, prior to 1947." This view of the lower appellate Court was expressed when it referred to what could transpire from the revenue records which proved that the claim of tenancy rights from the evacuees extending to a period of 40 to 45 years and prior to 1947 was, in any case, untrue. The lower appellate Court also came to the conclusion that rent receipts (Exs. D-7 and D-7/1) filed by the defendants were not genuine.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents rightly urges that the finding relied upon is only an observation about what the settlement entries could indicate, but that the real position in law is that the defendants were no better than licensees. He relies on the provisions of Section 8, sub-section (4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 :-

"Where, after any evacuee property has vested in the Custodian any person is in possession thereof, he shall be deemed to be holding it on behalf of the Custodian and shall on demand surrender possession of it to the Custodian or to any other person duly authorised by him in this behalf." The contention is that this provision, read with the provisions of Section 4 of this Act, prevents the defendants from claiming any status higher than that of licensees. Section 4 of the Act of 1950 provides as follows :-

"4. (1) The provisions of this Act and of the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.

(2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing in any other law controlling the rents of, or evictions from, any property shall apply, or be deemed ever to have applied, to evacuee property."

4. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has relied upon an observation in Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 SC 702 at p. 704 where, after citing the p