The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent must form an opinion that the property is still evacuee property before issuing a demand notice for rent.

1. In this revision petition demand notice dated 21.2.2004 issued by respondent has been assailed mainly on the ground that the house in respect of which rent has been demanded is not evacuee property and the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such demand notice.

2. As per the revision petition, the house No:385 situated at Mohalla Dalpatian Jammu was notified as evacuee property vide Notification No:125/385-EP dated 10.5.1972 under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of Evacuee's (Administration of Property) Act 2006. In the year 1978 one Mahmooda Begum claimed the ownership of the said house by filing an application under Section 18 of the said Act which was decided by the Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu on 13.5.1978 declaring her to be entitled to 1/6th share of the said house. With regard to the remaining portion of the house the Custodian granted the request of the counsel for the said lady and she was allowed to move a Civil court of competent jurisdiction to substantiate her title.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 13.5.1978 the possession of 1/6th share of his house was restored to Mahmooda Begum. She, however, preferred an appeal before the Custodian General in respect of 5/6th share of the house who allotted the same to her as a heir of the evacuee. The order of Custodian General was challenged before the Revenue Minister who upheld the same.

4. While the abovesaid process was completed three persons namely Muneer Hussain, Ali Haider and Ashiq Hussain filed a civil suit in the Hon'ble High Court for declaring the orders passed by Custodian and Custodian General as null and void, by arraying the petitioner and Mahmooda Begum besides other persons mentioned in the plaint as defendants. This suit was filed in the year 1984. In that suit Mst. Mahmooda relinquished her right in favour of the petitioner. The relinquishment was not questioned by the Custodian.

5. The said suit was ultimately disposed of on account of a compromise effected by the parties and the Hon'ble High Court declared the petitioner as absolute owner of the house No:385. Before the compromise the Custodian and Custodian General came to be deleted. However, these two officers preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court against the compromise decree. The Hon'ble Division Bench upheld the decree passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench, but observed same is not binding upon the Custodian and its other functionaries and they are at liberty to take any action against any of the party in case they form an opinion that the property is an evacuee property.

6. The Ist appeal was decided on 21.10.1991. Thereafter petitioner invested huge amount on the renovation and further constructions of the house in question where upon the Custodian issued a notice dated 6.11.1992 to the petitioner to stop the construction work of the house which was challenged by him before this Tribunal in a revision petition which was disposed of by holding that house in question is not a evacuee property and Custodian had no jurisdiction under law to ask the petitioner to stop the renovation and construction of the house. The impugned notice was declared as nonest in the eyes of law.

7. The said order was not challenged in any forum by the Custodian.

8. It was on 31.8.1999, the respondent issued a demand notice demanding rent of the house in question to the petitioner which was challenged by him before this Tribunal on the ground that he is the owner of the property and demand raised was without jurisdiction. However, by a statement made before this Tribunal the demand notice was withdrawn and consequently the revision petition was dismissed as infructuous. After about 5 years the respondent again issued a demand notice dated 21.2.2004 which has been assailed in the present revision petition on the ground that respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such notice and moreover no reasons has been stated for forming an opinion that the property is an evacuee property. It has been f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document