Effect of disclosure of facts.

This is a petition for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the order of the Collector of Nilgiris directing the eviction of the petitioner from certain premises in Ootacamund.

The property described in the proceedings as Coronation Talkies belonged to an evacuee who has gone away to Pakistan. This property includes a cinema theatre, three residential rooms and an office. In exercise of the powers conferred on them under Central Act XLIV of 1954, the officers concerned gave a lease of this portion to the petitioner in 1951 for a period of two years. The lease was renewed from time to time till 1955. In June, 1955, the Regional Settlement Commissioner invited tenders for the sale of the property. He also ordered the eviction of the petitioner. Against the order of eviction the petitioner appealed to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi. That Officer heard the petitioner and his counsel and on 1st August, 1957, passed an order dismissing his appeal.

On 30th September, 1957, the property was sold in auction to another evacuee for a sum of Rs. 1,42,000. The purchaser was permitted to set off a sum of Rs. 1,19,606 which was admissible to him in respect of certain claims which he had. For the payment of the balance of Rs. 22,394 he was given 15 days’ time counting from 17th October, 1957.

On 19th October, 1957, the petitioner and his counsel appeared before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, and asked that he should be allowed to continue in possession for a few months in order to enable him to comply with obligations he had undertaken to film distributors. The Chief Settlement Commissioner then passed an order granting the petitioner time till 19th January, 1958, to arrange his affairs and to give vacant possession to the Regional Settlement Commissioner. In the course of his order, the Chief Settlement Commissioner expressly stated:

“ He (the petitioner) has also put in a petition accepting the necessity for his eviction but says that he would abide by any order in regard to extending his stay and Would peacefully hand over the premises at the expiry of this period.”

The Chief Settlement Commissioner also recorded:

“ This extension is not being given because of any right which the petitioner might have but solely to save the petitioner from damage. If the petitioner does not hand over possession peacefully at the expiry of this period, he will be evicted.”

After having obtained that period of respite, the petitioner took up the position that he was entitled to remain in possession under section 29 of Act (Central) XLIV of 1954 and wrote to that effect to the Collector of Nilgiris. The Collector addressed the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Bombay, and, after obtaining his instructions, wrote on 23rd January, 1958, to the petitioner directing him to hand over possession before 27th January, 1958. He was also warned that if he failed to hand over possession, peacefully he would be ejected by force if necessary. The petitioner appears to have made further representations to the Collector who on 24th January, 1958, modified the order he had previously passed and informed the petitioner that the eviction would take place on 9th February, 1958, unless he obtained orders from the High Court to the contrary. In these circumstances the petitioner has come to this Court for the issue of a writ to quash the order of the Collector, dated 24th January, 1958.

To complete the statement of facts it is sufficient to add that the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser was confirmed by the appropriate officer ; but no sale certificate has so far been issued to him.

Mr. Gopalswamy Ayyangar, the learned advocate for the petitioner, rested his case on section 29 of Act XLIV of 1954. It is sufficient to quote the first two paragraphs of the first sub-section.

“Where any person to whom the provisions of this section apply, is in lawful possession of any immovable property of the class notified under sub-section (2), which is tran