1. In this revision petition demand notice dated 21.2.2004 issued by respondent has been assailed mainly on the ground that the house in respect of which rent has been demanded is not evacuee property and the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such demand notice. 2. As per the revision petition, the house No:385 situated at Mohalla Dalpatian Jammu was notified as evacuee property vide Notification No:125/385-EP dated 10.5.1972 under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of Evacuee's (Administration of Property) Act 2006. In the year 1978 one Mahmooda Begum claimed the ownership of the said house by filing an application under Section 18 of the said Act which was decided by the Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu on 13.5.1978 declaring her to be entitled to 1/6th share of the said house. With regard to the remaining portion of the house the Custodian granted the request of the counsel for the said lady and she was allowed to move a Civil court of competent jurisdiction to substantiate her title. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 13.5.1978 the possession of 1/6th share of his house was restored to Mahmooda Begum. She, however, preferred an appeal before the Custodian General in respect of 5/6th share of the house who allotted the same to her as a heir of the evacuee. The order of Custodian General was challenged before the Revenue Minister who upheld the same. 4. While the abovesaid process was completed three persons namely Muneer Hussain, Ali Haider and Ashiq Hussain filed a civil suit in the Hon'ble High Court for declaring the orders passed by Custodian and Custodian General as null and void, by arraying the petitioner and Mahmooda Begum besides other persons mentioned in the plaint as defendants. This suit was filed in the year 1984. In that suit Mst. Mahmooda relinquished her right in favour of the petitioner. The relinquishment was not questioned by the Custodian. 5. The said suit was ultimately disposed of on account of a compromise effected by the parties and the Hon'ble High Court declared the petitioner as absolute owner of the house No:385. Before the compromise the Custodian and Custodian General came to be deleted. However, these two officers preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court against the compromise decree. Before the compromise the Custodian and Custodian General came to be deleted. However, these two officers preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court against the compromise decree. The Hon'ble Division Bench upheld the decree passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench, but observed same is not binding upon the Custodian and its other functionaries and they are at liberty to take any action against any of the party in case they form an opinion that the property is an evacuee property. 6. The Ist appeal was decided on 21.10.1991. Thereafter petitioner invested huge amount on the renovation and further constructions of the house in question where upon the Custodian issued a notice dated 6.11.1992 to the petitioner to stop the construction work of the house which was challenged by him before this Tribunal in a revision petition which was disposed of by holding that house in question is not a evacuee property and Custodian had no jurisdiction under law to ask the petitioner to stop the renovation and construction of the house. The impugned notice was declared as nonest in the eyes of law. 7. The said order was not challenged in any forum by the Custodian. 8. It was on 31.8.1999, the respondent issued a demand notice demanding rent of the house in question to the petitioner which was challenged by him before this Tribunal on the ground that he is the owner of the property and demand raised was without jurisdiction. However, by a statement made before this Tribunal the demand notice was withdrawn and consequently the revision petition was dismissed as infructuous. After about 5 years the respondent again issued a demand notice dated 21.2.2004 which has been assailed in the present revision petition on the ground that respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such notice and moreover no reasons has been stated for forming an opinion that the property is an evacuee property. It has been further stated that the notice in question is hit by the principles of res judicata. Another ground adopted to topple down the notice is that respondent had become functous officio when it did not refer the claim of Mst. Mohmooda to the civil court but granted her liberty to get the title of property with respect to 5/6th share to be determined by the civil court. Another ground adopted to topple down the notice is that respondent had become functous officio when it did not refer the claim of Mst. Mohmooda to the civil court but granted her liberty to get the title of property with respect to 5/6th share to be determined by the civil court. That thereafter the respondent was neither a necessary party nor a proper party as regards the determination of the title of the Mst. Mohmooda with respect to the 5/6th share of the house in question and once the court had declared the petitioner as the absolute owner of the property the respondent has no business to meddle with the said property. 9. In this case the respondent's counsel has submitted written arguments. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has verbally argued the case. Alongwith him Ld. Counsel for respondent was also heard and record submitted by him examined minutely. 10. While addressing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Bhat re-iterated all the main ground adopted in the revision petition and after taking this court through the judgment of this Tribunal passed in the revision petition which was challenged after the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to stop the construction work of the house, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench inter alia submitted that first of all in the light of the judgment of this Tribunal which has attained finality the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the demand notice and secondly if the Hon'ble High Court had given liberty to the respondent to take any action, the respondent without forming any opinion that the property is evacuee property, issued the impugned notice which is illegal and void. According to him once the Custodian declared Mohmooda as owner to the extent of 1/6th share of the house & Custodian General allotted the remaining portion as legal heir of the evacuee. Then without making any reference to this aspect in the impugned notice, the same is invalid and not in conformity to the direction of Hon'ble Division Bench. He was of the opinion that the revision petition is maintainable even though in it the demand notice has been challenged because in fact the petitioner has challenged the authority of respondent to issue demand notice. 11. Responding to the argument of Mr. Bhat, Ld. Counsel for the respondent Mr. He was of the opinion that the revision petition is maintainable even though in it the demand notice has been challenged because in fact the petitioner has challenged the authority of respondent to issue demand notice. 11. Responding to the argument of Mr. Bhat, Ld. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Sheikh has submitted that revision petition is not maintainable because the same is directed against a demand notice which is not a final order. 12. In the written arguments, he has submitted that petitioner managed a decree on the basis of compromise between the private party and at the back of the Custodian Evacuee Property which is not binding on the Custodian which fact has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court which has permitted the Custodian to take action in case he form an opinion that the house in question is evacuee property. It has been further submitted that judgment of Single Bench is totally irrelevant because it stands modified by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 13. In respect of the earlier decision of this Tribunal, it has been submitted that no weight-age can be given to the same in the light of the DB Judgment. It has been further highlighted that no question of law or public interest is involved in the present revision petition which accordingly is not maintainable and is required to be dismissed. Mr. Sheikh verbally again submitted that Hon'ble DB has given full authority to the Custodian to take action against the petitioner. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the argument raised at bar. It is an admitted fact that Custodian had recognized the right of Mst. Mohmooda to the extent of 1/6th share in the house in question and restored its possession to her as owner as earlier as in the year 1978. The remaining portion was allotted by Custodian General to her as heir of the evacuee. This fact has been admitted in the first appeal filed by Custodian and Custodian General in the Hon'ble High Court as is revealed from the copy of appeal annexed with the file. Another admitted fact is that, this Tribunal had declared the petitioner as absolute owner of the house in question in the light of the judgment of the Single Bench of the Hon'ble high Court. This finding was given when the appeal was pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench. Another admitted fact is that, this Tribunal had declared the petitioner as absolute owner of the house in question in the light of the judgment of the Single Bench of the Hon'ble high Court. This finding was given when the appeal was pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench. After the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the judgment of Single Bench is not binding on the Custodian Department, the findings of this Tribunal that petitioner is the absolute owner has no relevance qua the respondent. Although the Hon'ble Division Bench has upheld the compromise decree but at the same time it has been held that the decree would not be binding on the custodian and its functionaries. The Hon'ble DB has given liberty to the Custodian to take action under E.P.Act in case he forms the opinion that the property is evacuee property. It is pertinent to mention here that none of the counsel for the parties brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench the judgment of this Tribunal declaring petitioner as the absolute owner. Had this fact been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble judges, the direction would have been different in my opinion. Any how, the case has to be now decided in the light of arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties. 15. It is to be seen as to whether in the impugned demand notice the respondent has formed an opinion that the property in question is evacuee property or not and if yes, is respondent competent to take action for recovery of rent from petitioner. 16. After going through the impugned notice, it is indicated that no where the opinion has been formed that the property in question is evacuee property. There is only a reference to the notification by which the property was notified as evacuee property in the year 1972. This exercise is not in compliance with the spirit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench. The fact of Notification was in the knowledge of the Hon'ble Division Bench. In the light of lot of changes having taken place like declaring Mst. Mohmooda as the absolute owner of the 1/6th portion of the house and the allotment of remaining portion as heir of the evacuee, the Hon'ble Division Bench had asked the Custodian and its other functionaries to form the opinion whether still the property is evacuee property or not. Mohmooda as the absolute owner of the 1/6th portion of the house and the allotment of remaining portion as heir of the evacuee, the Hon'ble Division Bench had asked the Custodian and its other functionaries to form the opinion whether still the property is evacuee property or not. In this background the demand notice is defective and cannot be pressed into service by the respondent. Unless the Custodian form the opinion by stating reasons that property is evacuee property he cannot demand any rent from the petitioner. 17. Moreover the Custodian and its other functionaries appears to have misinterpreted observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench as is evident from the record submitted by the Custodian. The Hon'ble Division Bench had not asked the respondent to take action against the petitioner only but against the parties to the first appeal. The Custodian and its functionaries have in fact formed the opinion that as per Hon'ble High Court it is only the petitioner against whom action has to be taken as is evident from page-15 of the record submitted by the Respondent. In fact after delisting the house in question from the Notification to the extent of 1/6th portion of the house and making the allotment of the rest of the portion of the house in favour of Mst. Mohmooda the question arises as to whether Custodian has cause of action against the petitioner. 18. After having restored the property to Mehmood Begum under Section 14(3) of Evacuee Property Act, the respondent's right to manage the property had come to an end and property was no more evacuee property. If still Custodian was of the opinion that property is evacuee property he should have formulated the opinion as directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. This has not been done, so notice in question is invalid. 19. Even otherwise by restoration of property to Mehmooda Begum in 1978, allotment in favour of petitioner stood impliedly cancelled resulting in loss of right to respondent to demand rent/premium from the petitioner. On this count, the demand notice is also invalid. One fails to understand as to how the petitioner stand recorded in the record of respondent as tenant/allottee from 1979 when in the year 1978 Mst Mohmooda has been declared as absolute owner of the 1/6th portion of the house and remaining portion having been allotted to her as heir of the evacuee. 20. One fails to understand as to how the petitioner stand recorded in the record of respondent as tenant/allottee from 1979 when in the year 1978 Mst Mohmooda has been declared as absolute owner of the 1/6th portion of the house and remaining portion having been allotted to her as heir of the evacuee. 20. The respondent and its other functionaries had been given liberty by Hon'ble Division Bench to take action against the parties and not against the petitioner alone and without taking into notice the above facts and position of law, a demand notice has been issued against the petitioner. This type of mistake was earlier also committed by respondent, when a demand notice dated 31.8.1999 was issued to the petitioner, after Ist appeal was decided in July 1999. That notice was also challenged before this Tribunal by petitioner. During the pendency of said petition, respondent realized the mistake of not having formed the opinion as directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, whereupon respondents counsel submitted that demand notice is withdrawn. Consequently the revision petition was dismissed as not maintainable . Instead of rectifying the mistake, a ditto notice has again been issued by respondent, which is as such also not maintainable. 21. The respondent has also not clarified the position of the portion of the house in question which has been re-numbered as House No: 385 and allotted to one Dr. Irshad Ahmed, when the case of the petitioner is that this portion of the house is part of house No:385 and is on the ground floor. On this account the demand notice is also defective and mis-leading. 22. In view of the observation and discussion referred here-in-above the revision petition is allowed with cost and demand notice is quashed. 23. Record of the court below be sent back and file shall be consigned to record after due compilation.