Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 47 (JK)

Chaman Lal v. Custodian General, J&K, Jammu

2012-02-13

Sanjay Gupta

body2012
1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by respondent no. 1 dated 10-06-09, by virtue of which petitioner has been directed to pay monthly rent @ Rs. 100/- per month from 1-12-1999 to 1-9-2003 and thereafter Rs. 393/- per month, with respect to accommodation under his occupation i.e. house bearing No. EP/402 Mohalla Baba Jiwan Shah Jammu. 2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, that order impugned is bad in law and while passing the order court below did not appreciate the order of Hon'ble High Court. That order of fixation of rent is arbitrary and petitioner has been discriminated, as rent is in excess as compare to similar accommodation given to other person. 3. Heard, both the counsel at length and gone through record. Counsel for the petitioner has elaborated all the grounds taken in revision petition. Whereas respondent's counsel has supported the impugned order. 4. From perusal of record it appears petitioner and one Asgar Hussain have been allotted parts of house no. EP/402 situated at Mohalla jiwan shah jammu . Petitioner was paying rent of Rs 60/- PM to Custodian department with regard to his property. Thereafter dispute arose between Petitioner and co-occupant Asgar Ali over allocation of accommodation, in the said E.P. house and matter ultimately went to Hon'ble High Court. Hon'ble High Court, while disposing of LPA No. 423/99 on 10-11-99, specifically allocated accommodation to parties and directed custodian to fix rent. Relevant extract of order of Hon'ble High Court read as under:- "Admitted. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the allocation made of accommodation 5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11 in the map forming part of annexure F.I. to the writ petition shall remain with the appellant Chaman Lal. The accommodation No. 1,2,3, and 4 shall be with respondent Asgar Hussain Khan. The parties would be at liberty to raise further construction with the permission of Custodian Department. The Custodian department shall also be at liberty to refix the rentals which are to be payable by the appellant and private respondent. It be seen that the Jammu and Kashmir House and Shops Control Act 1966 is not applicable to the premises, therefore, the Custodian department keeping in view the prevalent market rate would fix the rent. If any contempt proceedings are pending before any subordinate authority, that shall automatically come to an end. It be seen that the Jammu and Kashmir House and Shops Control Act 1966 is not applicable to the premises, therefore, the Custodian department keeping in view the prevalent market rate would fix the rent. If any contempt proceedings are pending before any subordinate authority, that shall automatically come to an end. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Dated: 10-11-99 SD/JUDGE SD/JUDGE 5. In compliance to this direction of Hon'ble High Court Custodian E.P. Jammu on 6-9-2003, fixed monthly rent @ Rs 393 per month with regard to accommodation given to petitioner herein. This rent was fixed by Custodian on the basis of assessment report submitted by Assistant Engineer of department. Accordingly, petitioner herein was directed to pay Rs. 2,1998/- as outstanding and Rs. 4892/- compensation with regard to damages caused by petitioner to the property illegally. 6. This order was challenged by petitioner before Custodian General, J&K Jammu who modified the order of Custodian, and thereby directed that, enhanced fixation of rent shall be charged from 21-09-2003, and till then petitioner shall pay Rs 100/- per month as rent. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter. 8. Allottee of a Custodian property is mere a licensee with all its incidents and affects. It does not confer on allottee any vested right of ownership and Custodian being a rightful owner has always right to look after the property and to manage it according to prevailing circumstances. In this way Custodian of E.P. is always an administrator of property of E.P. Department. Custodians are appointed in term of section 4 of E.P. Act. Section 10-A of E.P. Act empowers Custodian to revise the rent of evacuee property. Sub-clause 2 of section 10-A prescribed procedure for assessment of rent. As per this clause rent shall be assessed on the basis of capital cost prevalent in the year of construction along with rent norms of PW Department. In the present case Custodian after going through the assessment report of Assistant Engineer of the department, has revised the rent. In this way Custodian has not exceeded his jurisdiction. 9. During the pendency of revision petition a Commissioner was also appointed who furnished report and observed that, petitioner is in actual possession of two rooms one store, one porch, one open bath room, bath and kitchen. In this way Custodian has not exceeded his jurisdiction. 9. During the pendency of revision petition a Commissioner was also appointed who furnished report and observed that, petitioner is in actual possession of two rooms one store, one porch, one open bath room, bath and kitchen. This accommodation cannot be available to any person on monthly rent of Rs. 393/- pm at present any where in state. 10. Law is very much clear that any order passed after appreciating the facts cannot be disturbed, while exercising Revisional jurisdiction, unless order and finding are perverse in nature. 11. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any infirmities of law in the orders of Custodian General and Custodian. Accordingly this revision petition is dismissed. 12. The record file of the court below is sent back to the trial court and file of this court be consigned to record after due compilation.