The Madras High Court held that mere direction to consider the representation for the sale of a property would do no service to the cause of justice since a company had not established any right to sell the enemy property.
A company (petitioner) had filed a petition before the High Court to direct the Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property of India (Custodian) to consider the petitioner’s representation to forbear eviction from a property.
The property was leased out to the company by the Custodian which was doing business on the said premises. The company argued that they had altered and constructed the building into a multi-storey building of three floors. Further, they had been in the peaceful possession of the property for more than 51 years without rent default or arrears.
When the company approached the Custodian to purchase the property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (the Act), the Custodian declined to do so and tried to lock and seal the property without due process of the law.
A Single Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam observed, “Mere direction to the respondents to consider the representation, would do no service to the cause of justice, since the petitioner/company has not established any right to sell the enemy property by the Custodian to their favour. It is an administrative decision to be taken by the Government of India under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968.”
Advocate J. Antony Jesus represented the petitioner, while SPCCG K. Srinivasamurthy appeared for the respondents.
The Court clarified that the dispute was not regarding the subject property being an enemy property under the Act, but was about the company wanting to purchase the property from which they were being evicted. Moreover, they had instituted the petition for non-consideration of the representation for the same.
The Court pointed out that non-consideration of the representation submitted by the company would not provide an absolute right to the decision of the company to purchase the enemy property from the Custodian under the Act.
The Court held that the relief sought cannot be granted and directed the Custodian to to resume the possession of the property by following the procedures under the Act.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: S.R.K.Babu Ismail Shahib & Company v. The Custodian of Enemy Property of India & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate J. Antony Jesus
Respondents: SPCCG K. Srinivasamurthy and AGP T. Arunkumar
