1. Petitioner has filed the instant revision petition against the impugned order dated 3rd of July, 2012 on the ground that the land measuring 03 kanal 01 marla falling under Khasra No. 138 situated at Sidhra, Jammu was given to the petitioner in the year 1987 by the Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu. An agreement of lease was also executed by Custodian, Evacuee Property Jammu in favour of the petitioner as per lease deed dated 18.04.1987, copy of the lease deed is enclosed as Annexure-"A". Petitioner has installed a Petrol Pump over the above said land after obtaining prior permission from the Custodian enclosed as Annexure-"B". Petitioner also got the permission from District Magistrate, Jammu copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-"C". 2. After the expiry of lease deed dated 18.4.1987 another lease deed was executed by the Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu on 07.07.2003 or another 30 years. The Photostat copy of the lease deed dated 07.07.2003 is enclosed as Annexure-"D". 3. Respondent without any reason, issued show cause notice to the petitioner mentioning this facts that Rs. 40,000/- is outstanding against the petitioner and it was also alleged in show cause notice that petitioner has violated rules and regulations of the department framed under J&K Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 2006 and by keeping rent unpaid for three months and not renewed lease agreement according to the show cause notice. Allotment of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled. This notice is annexed at Annexure-E. Further stated that petitioner appeared on 6.5.2012 and replied both the allegations . Receipt of rent produced before the respondent and copies of receipts are enclosed with the petition . Allegation regarding the lease deed has not been renewed were also disproved by showing extended lease and no further date was given to the petitioner. And petitioner came to know that the respondent had passed the impugned order by cancelling the lease of the petitioner. Regarding the land measuring 03 kanal 01 marla falling under Khasra No. 138 min situated at Sidhra, copy of the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2012 passed by Custodian Evacuee Property annexed at Annexure". Further stated that respondent has passed an order without hearing the petitioner and the grounds taken in the impugned order are entirely different as compare to show cause notice. And the Custodian has reviewed the order after lapse of 24 years. Further stated that respondent has passed an order without hearing the petitioner and the grounds taken in the impugned order are entirely different as compare to show cause notice. And the Custodian has reviewed the order after lapse of 24 years. Further stated that the petitioner is in occupation of the allotted land and in case the impugned order is not set aside, the petitioner's interest would be prejudiced. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that u/s 10 of the Evacuee Property Act, 2006, the Custodian has an authority to cancel any allotment or terminate any lease or amend the terms of any such lease or of any agreement on which any evacuee property held or occupied by the person. And no allotment can be cancelled excepted as provided for in the rules framed by the Govt. in this behalf. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that Custodian has an authority to cancel the terms of lease. Rule-14 is reproduced hereunder: Cancellation or variation of leases and allotments (1) The Custodian shall not ordinarily vary the terms of a lease or allotment, subsisting at the time he takes possession of the immovable property or cancel any such lease or evict a person who is lawfully in occupation of such property under a lease granted by the lessor before he became an evacuee and not anticipation of becoming an evacuee, unless the Custodian is satisfied that the lessee has done or omitted to do something which renders him liable to eviction under any law for the time being in force. (2) In case of a lease or allotment granted by the Custodian himself, the Custodian may evict a person on any grounds justifying eviction of tenant under, any law relating to the control of rents for the time being in force or for violation of any of the conditions of the lease or the allotment. (2) In case of a lease or allotment granted by the Custodian himself, the Custodian may evict a person on any grounds justifying eviction of tenant under, any law relating to the control of rents for the time being in force or for violation of any of the conditions of the lease or the allotment. (3) The Custodian may cancel an allotment and evict the allottee, if he is satisfied that; (i) The allottee has secured the allotment by misrepresentation or fraud: or (ii) The allottee is in possession of more than one evacuee property of the same kind, that is to say, more than one residential premises, or more than one business premises or more than one industrial premises: or (iii) The allottee is in occupation of accommodation which is in the opinion of the Custodian is in excess of the requirement of the allottee either in State or outside: or (iv) The alottee or any person normally residing with him or dependent on him, has been granted by the Government a plot of land for constructing a house thereon : or (v) The allottee or any person normally residing with him or dependent on him, has built a house or otherwise acquired residential accommodation: or (vi) The allottee has sublet or permitted any other person to occupy the property allotted or leased out to him: or (vii) The allottee has obtained gainful employment in a place other than the place where the evacuee property allotted to him situate: or (viii) The property is required for any public purpose: or (ix) The allottee has kept arrears of rent of any three months unpaid: or (x) The allottee is using the property for a purpose other than the one for which it was allotted or leased or keeping the property in disuse: 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has not violated any terms or condition of the lease deed and respondent had no authority to cancel the lease agreement as petitioner has installed petrol pump over the allotted land and earning his livelihood as well as his family by running the said business. Moreover respondent was not competent to cancel the lease agreement without seeking the prior approval of Custodian General. The impugned order deserved to be set aside. 7. Moreover respondent was not competent to cancel the lease agreement without seeking the prior approval of Custodian General. The impugned order deserved to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that Rule 13-C would have come into operation, if the land in question would have been vacant. Further argued that the petitioner is holding the land in question on lease basis since 19897 and question of putting the land in open auction does not arise. This aspect was required to be seen at the time of allotting the land and after 24 years, the respondent has opened his eyes when the property was required to put to open auction. The Custodian is revising its own order whereas Custodian had no power to revise its own order. 8. Respondent was under obligation to seek the prior permission from his superior authority to revise its own order and failure to do so the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the respondent cannot a act as a prosecutor as well as Judge of his own case. 9. Further argued that Custodian has no power to cancel an allotment at his own sweet will and compliance of Rule-14 is must. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred citation reported in AIR 1961 SC 1312 titled Md. Sharfudin Din v. R.P.Singh and others, Para No. 7 is reproduced hereunder: "Strong reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, (1952) SCR 696; ( AIR 1952 SC 319 ) in support of the contentions of the respondents. In that case, one information supplied by one Tek Chand Dolwani to the Addl. Custodian of the Evacuee Property, the latter started proceedings under the Bombay Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act 1949 against one Aboobaker, The Addl. Custodian after recording the statement of Aboobaker and examining the evidence produced by Tek Chand Bolwani, held that the said Aboobker was not an evacuee. Tek Chand Dolwani filed an appeal against the said order to the Custodian General of India. One of the questions raised was whether the said Tek Chand Dolwani was a person aggrieved by the order of the Addl. Custodian within the meaning of S. 24 of the central ordinance XXVII of 1949 and was entitled to appeal against the said order. One of the questions raised was whether the said Tek Chand Dolwani was a person aggrieved by the order of the Addl. Custodian within the meaning of S. 24 of the central ordinance XXVII of 1949 and was entitled to appeal against the said order. This Court held that the said person was a person aggrieved within the meaning of the said section. It was proved in R 5(5) of the rules made under the ordinance that any person or persons claiming to be interested in the enquiry or in the property being declared as evacuee property, might file a written statement in the reply to the written statement filed by persons interested in the property claiming that the property should not be declared a s an evacuee property: and that the Custodian should proceed to hear the evidence, if any, which the party appearing to show cause might produce and also the evidence which the party claiming to be interested as mentioned above might adduce. The rule, therefore authorized the Additional Custodian to adjudicate between the person moving the Custodian to declare a property as evacuee property and the person denying that fact. In that Context this Court held that the person moving the Custodian was a person aggrieved within the meaning of S.24. This decision or the decisions relied upon by this Court in the aforesaid casein coming to the said conclusion are not relevant to the present enquiry. Where a statue or rules framed there under provide for a dispute between two parties to be decided by a Tribunal. It is implicit in that provision that the defeated party is one aggrieved by that decision. But the same cannot be said of a Custodian and the party in whose favour he gave a decision; nor can another subordinate Officer of the Custodian, who made the decision and who has no statutory duty to appear before the Custodian to put forward the case of the department or lead evidence in support thereof, be equated to a party in a lis. We therefore hold having regard to the scheme of the Act, that the Assistant Custodian Headquarters, Patna is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of S.24 of the Act. The appeal to the Custodian, therefore, was not competent. 11. I have heard and perused the file as well as record submitted by the respondent. We therefore hold having regard to the scheme of the Act, that the Assistant Custodian Headquarters, Patna is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of S.24 of the Act. The appeal to the Custodian, therefore, was not competent. 11. I have heard and perused the file as well as record submitted by the respondent. Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner bearing no. 522-23/EPTJ/12/dated 30.4.2012 stating therein that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- had been outstanding against the petitioner and the property allotted to the petitioner had been used for commercial purpose without seeking prior permission and both the queries raised by the Custodian had been replied by the petitioner and as per the order dated 6.5.1987, petitioner has been permitted to sub lease the premises to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And this order had been passed by the Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu regarding the payment of the arrears of the rent. Petitioner has placed copies of the receipt which shows that rent has been paid up to March, 2013. Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu has travelled beyond the terms and conditions of the notice and passed the impugned order which is against the provision of section 10 of the Evacuee Property Act- 2006 read with rules 14 of the Evacuee Property Rules- 2008. 12. Revision petition is allowed and impugned order is hereby set aside. 13. Record file alongwith copy of the order be sent to concerned quarter and office file be consigned to records after due completion.