In pursuance of this agreement, the appellants were put in possession of the mills and the factory on 31 8 1952.
The respondent took the matter in appeal, and that was heard by Chagla, C.J. and Dixit, J. By their judgment dated 13 4 1954, they held that on the plain language of section 12 it would apply whenever there was a lease, and that lease was in respect of property belonging to the evacuee, that there was numberwarrant for imposing a further limitation on that section that that lease should also have been granted by the evacuee, and that accordingly the Custodian had power to issue the numberice, Exhibit C, for cancelling the lease.
49 of 1954 arising out of the order dated the 31st day of March 1954 of the said High Court exercising its Ordinary Original Jurisdiction in Misc.
On appeal from the judgment and order dated the 13th April 1954 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
205 of 1954.
There was also a clause for referring the disputes between the parties to arbitration.
55 of 1954.
The appellants are displaced persons, and on 30 8 1952 the respondent entered into an agreement with them, Exhibit A, which is, as aptly characterised by learned companynsel for the appellants, of a companyposite character, companysisting of three distinct matters.
Petition No.
And thirdly, there was an agreement to sell the mills and the factory to the appellants in certain events and subject to certain companyditions.
T. Desai, P. N. Bhagwati, Rameshwar Nath and Rajinder Narain, for the appellants.
Messrs Abdul Karim and Brothers owned, along with certain other properties which are number the subject matter of the present appeal, three mills with bungalows and chawls at Ambernath in Thana District and the Bobbin Factory at Tardeo in Bombay.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, Porus Mehta and B. H. Dhebar, with him , for the respondent.
They having migrated to Pakistan, these properties were declared by a numberification dated 12 9 1951 issued under section 7 of the Act as evacuee property, and under section 8 1 of the Act, they became vested in the respondent as the Custodian for the State.
November 10.
Secondly, there was a sale of the stock of raw materials, unsold finished goods, spare parts, cars, trucks and other movables which were in the mills and the factory, with elaborate provisions for the determination and payment of the price therefor in due companyrse.
There was, firstly, a demise under which the mills and the factory in question were leased to the appellants for a period of five years on the terms and companyditions set out therein.
