ORDER G.P. Bhutt, C.J. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14-7-1958 which was passed by the Managing Officer, Evacuee Property, Jabalpur, directing the petitioner to vacate house No. 1043, Lordganj, Jabalpur. The petitioner is a displaced person, who holds a verified claim of Rs. 55,095. He was in occupation of the house, which is an evacuee property, as a tenant on Rs. 50 per mensem. On 16-1-1958 he received a notice by which the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Jabalpur, purporting to act under section 8(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, demanded possession of the house on or before 26-1-1958. The petitioner filed a statement before the Assistant Custodian on 21-1-1958 in which he prayed that the arrears of rent should be deducted from the amount of compensation payable to him and that the notice demanding possession of the house be cancelled. The warrant of possession was accordingly withdrawn, but latterly on 14-7-1958 the same officer purporting to Act as Managing Officer, Evacuee Property, sent the impugned notice asking the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the house by 17-7-1958. Shri J.B. Assardas, who appeared for the petitioner, stated before us that after the petition was filed he received the amount of compensation exclusive of the arrears of rent, which have been duly adjusted towards the claim. It is not therefore necessary for us to determine whether the petitioner had the right to get the arrears of rent adjusted towards his claim for compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The only question is whether the notice of the Managing Officer, Evacuee Property, has been issued on proper authority. As already stated, the officer who issued the notice on 16-1-1958 under section 8(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, held two offices, viz., that of the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, and that of Managing Officer, Evacuee Property. The first notice was issued by him as Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, but that was withdrawn on 21-1-1958. The question whether the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, could act under section 8(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance does not, therefore, arise. The subsequent notice that is impugned was issued by that officer in his capacity as Managing Officer, Evacuee Property. The question whether the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, could act under section 8(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance does not, therefore, arise. The subsequent notice that is impugned was issued by that officer in his capacity as Managing Officer, Evacuee Property. Apparently, therefore, he purported to act under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. This, he could do only if the house was acquired under section 12 of that Act. It is admitted that the house is not an acquired property. Therefore, the Managing Officer, Evacuee Property, had no authority to issue the impugned notice. In the above view, the petition is allowed, and the notice of eviction dated 14-7-1958 issued by the Managing Officer, Evacuee Property, Jabalpur, is quashed. However, looking to the circumstances of the case there shall be no order for costs. The outstanding amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.