It is number disputed that until the time when the Competent Officer passed his order for sale of the property and the Appellate Officer companyfirmed it the appellant had number paid the mortgage amount, number was there any agreement between him and the Custodian where under the latter would hand over vacant possession of the property against payment of the mortgage debt.
In 1954, the appellant made an application to the Competent Officer under the Evacuee Interest Separation Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Separation Act for separating his interest as the mortgagor and tenant in the said property.
The claim was rejected on the ground that there was numberagreement between the appellant and the Custodian for getting the vacant possession and also on the ground that the Competent Officer, under the Separation Act, had numberpower to direct the Custodian to hand over to the appellant vacant possession.
However, it is companyceded by companynsel for respondents 1 and 3 that the appellant has since then paid the entire mortgage debt and the Competent Officer has under s. 10 of the Separation Act accepted that amount.
From that time onwards the appellant made diverse applications to the Competent Officer and the Appellate Officer under the Separation Act for obtaining vacant possession against payment of the mortgage debt.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 25, 1966 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No.
A learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding that the Competent Officer had numberjurisdiction to order such vacant possession against the Custodian or against the tenants or allottees inducted on the property by the Custodian.
The appellant then filed the present appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.
In those proceedings a sum of Rs.
The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab in the Circuit Bench at Delhi for quashing the said order of sale and for a direction to the Competent Officer to hand over vacant possession against payment by him of the mortgage debt.
In one such application made in 1958 he alleged that a companypromise had been arrived at between him and the Custodian under which he would pay the, mortgage, debt and the Custodian thereupon would simultaneously hand over to him vacant possession.
36 D of 1966.
The appellant claimed that he was entitled to obtain vacant possession of the said property against payment by him of the mortgage debt.
The Letters Patent appeal against that judgment and order was also dismissed.
The appellant alleged that sometime in November 1949 the Custodian forcibly dispossessed him and either allotted or let out, or allowed the said premises to be occupied by certain persons.
36 of 1967.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On this finding the Appellate Officer dismissed the appellants application as he had neither paid the mortgage money number put in the verified claims as suggested in the said companyrespondence and companyfirmed the order of the Competent Officer under which the property had been ordered to be sold in the absence of any agreement with the Custodian or the payment of the mortgage debt.
H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for respondent Nos.
By his order dated March 23, 1959, the Appellate Officer, however, held that numbersuch companypromise had been entered into by the Custodian and that the companyrespondence between the appellant and that authority merely indicated that what was agreed to was that upon the appellant lodging certain verified claims an open portion shown as A, B, C and D in the plan of the property would be handed over to him.
Bishan Narain, R. Mahatingier and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
1 and 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J In 1933 the appellant built a bungalow situate at 27, Curzon Road, New Delhi on a plot acquired by him under a permanent lease from the Secretary of State for India.
In 1943 he mortgaged the said property with possession in favour of one K. B. Bunyad Hussain but obtained a lease thereof at the same time from the mortgagee and companytinued to reside therein as tenant.
In November 1949, the mortgagee left for Pakistan a whereupon the Custodian of Evacuee Property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Administration Act declared him to be an evacuee and his interest in the said property as the mortgagee as evacuee, property.
1,45,735/ was ultimately held to be due as the mortgage debt under the said mortgage.
