JUDGMENT Dutt, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the propriety of the judgment and order of the learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Judge discharged the Rule Nisi issued on the application of the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. One Sk. Golam Rasul, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, purchased the Premises No.6, Harinbari 1st Lane, Calcutta-73 from one Musstt. Khadija Bai alias Khatun by a registered conveyance dated 1.9.69. It may be stated here that the said premises have been in occupation of a few tenants. The appellants received a notice dated 21.4.79 issued by the Assistant Custodian of the Enemy Property alleging that the said Musstt. Khadija Khatun was a Pakistani National and that the said premises was an Enemy Property. Further, it was stated in the said notice that the property vested in the Asstt. Custodian of Enemy Property for India under Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, Notification No. 12/2/65-E. pty. dated 10.9.65, issued under Rule 133V of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The appellants were called upon by the said notice to show cause within ten days of the receipt of the same why the rents and profits of the said premises described as the Enemy Property should not be collected by the Assistant Custodian and why the Appellants should not forthwith deposit the rents and profits so far collected by them since 10.9.65 with the Assistant Custodian. 3. As directed, the appellants submitted an answer to the show cause notice. It was alleged by the appellants that the said Mustt. Khadija Khatun was not a Pakistani National and accordingly, the property, being Premises No.6 Harinbari 1st Lane, Calcutta, was not an Enemy Property. Before the expiry of ten days of the submission of reply by the appellants to the said show cause notice, the Asstt. Custodian of Enemy Property by his letter dated 23.4.79 asked the tenants of the premises in question not to pay rents to the appellants but to pay the same to him. Being aggrieved by the said show cause notice as also the action of the Asstt. Custodian of Enemy Property demanding rents and profits from the tenants the appellants moved a writ petition before a learned single Judge of this Court and obtained a Rule Nisi. Being aggrieved by the said show cause notice as also the action of the Asstt. Custodian of Enemy Property demanding rents and profits from the tenants the appellants moved a writ petition before a learned single Judge of this Court and obtained a Rule Nisi. As stated already, the learned Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf of either party, discharged the Rule Nisi, Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Mukul Prokash Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Asstt. Custodian of Enemy Property had no authority to claim rents and profits from the appellants or from the tenants of the premises in question and to take possession of the same on the plea that the said premises was an Enemy Property and had vested in the Asstt. Custodian. In elaboration of the said contention, it is submitted by the learned Advocate that in view of the fact that the proclamation of emergency expired on 10.7.68, the purported order dated 21.4.79 declaring the premises to be the Enemy Property is without any jurisdiction and authority of law. Further, it is contended that in. order to attract the operation of section 5 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, it is necessary to establish that the Enemy Property had vested in the Assistant Custodian of Enemy property under the Act and the same continued to vest in him before the commencement of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. In the instant case, it is pointed out by the learned Advocate, no order by which such property was declared to be the Enemy Property was made before the expiry of the emergency and, as such, the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property had no authority to issue the impugned notice or order. 5. Section 5 of the Enemy Property Act provides, inter alia, that "Notwithstanding the expiration of the Defence of India Act, 1962 and the Defence of India Rules, 1962, all Enemy Property vested before such expiration in the custodian of Enemy Property for India appointed under the said Rules and continuing to vest in him immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall, as from such commencement, vest in the custodian.” 6. It is, accordingly, submitted that there should be a vesting of the Enemy Property before the expiration of the Defence of India Act and the Defence of India Rules, we have already referred to the Notification issued under Rule 133V of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 That notification provides as follows : "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule(1) of Rule 133V of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the Central Government hereby orders that all immovable property in India, belonging to or held or managed on behalf of all Pakistani National, shall vest in the custodian of Enemy Property for India with immediate effect. Nothing in this notification shall apply to any such property, belonging to or held by or managed on behalf of such of the Pakistani National as are employed in the different Missions of the Government of Pakistan in India". 7. The notification appears to be very clear and an Enemy Property vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property with immediate effect. It is, however, urged on behalf of the appellants that unless a property is specifically mentioned in the notification there was no question of vesting. It is submitted that the Notification dated 10.9.65 is a general notification without specifying any property declared to be the Enemy Property and accordingly, no property could vest under the said notification. In order to vest any property declared to be Enemy Property in the custodian it is, according to the appellants, necessary that the property should be specified in the notification. We are unable to accept this contention. Any property which is an Enemy Property or subsequently found out to be Enemy Property will vest by virtue of the notification in the custodian. In our opinion, it is not necessary to specify a particular property as Enemy Property in the notification for the purpose of vesting. Accordingly, if the premises in question is an Enemy Property it had vested in the Asstt. Custodian by virtue of the Notification dated 10.9.65 with immediate effect. 8. The plea of the appellants, however, is that the premises in question is not an Enemy Property and, as such, there is no question of vesting of the same under the Notification dated 1.9.65. Custodian by virtue of the Notification dated 10.9.65 with immediate effect. 8. The plea of the appellants, however, is that the premises in question is not an Enemy Property and, as such, there is no question of vesting of the same under the Notification dated 1.9.65. There can be no doubt that unless a property is an Enemy Property it can not vest in the custodian under the notification Nobody has yet decided whether the premises in question is an Enemy Property or not. It is the definite case of the appellants in their answer to the show cause notice that the premises in question is not an Enemy Property. The Asstt. Custodian of Enemy Property has not come to any decision whatsoever as to whether the property is an Enemy Property or not. It has been rightly complained on behalf of the appellants that without making any such decision, the custodian or Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property proceeded on the assumption that the premises in question is an Enemy Property. There is also ample justification for the comment made on 'behalf of the appellants that the Asstt. Custodian of Enemy Property has not applied his mind to the answers given by the appellants to the show cause notice. That will be apparent from the fact that instead of waiting for the expiry of the period of ten days within which the appellants were to show cause, the Asstt. Custodian of Enemy Property asked the tenants of the premises to pay rents to him. In our opinion, before any steps for taking possession of the premises in question are taken by the Asstt. Custodian of Enemy Property it must be decided by him whether the property is an Enemy Property or not, and such decision shall be made after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity of being beard. The Asstt. Custodian of Enemy Property cannot proceed on the basis of a pre-conceived notion or assumption, but he has to decide on evidence or materials that will be made available to him. In the circumstances, therefore, we are of the view that the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property cannot take possession of the premises in question without deciding the plea of the appellants that their vendor was not a Pakistani National and, consequently, the property was not and is not and Enemy Property. 9. In the circumstances, therefore, we are of the view that the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property cannot take possession of the premises in question without deciding the plea of the appellants that their vendor was not a Pakistani National and, consequently, the property was not and is not and Enemy Property. 9. In the circumstances, we direct the Assistant Custodian, of Enemy Property to dispose of the representation made by the appellants in answer to the show cause notice after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity of being heard. If the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property comes to a finding upon materials that may be made available to him that the property is an Enemy Property, then and then only he will proceed. The order of the learned Judge is modified to the above extent. The appeal is allowed in part. There will however, be no order as to costs. 10. Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, prays for a certificate for appeal under Article 134A of the Constitution. We do not think that the case involves any question of law of general importance and, accordingly, the prayer for a certificate is disallowed. Further, the Custodian of Enemy Property or the Assistant Custodian of Enemy, Property, as the case may be shall release the property in case it is found that the property is not an Enemy Property. Such decision shall be made by the Asstt. Custodian of Enemy Property within two months from date. Ray, J.: I agree