Harnam Singh, J.
1. By agreement made on the 1st of January 1948, Shri Ram Nath plaintiff gave possession of shop No. 200, Chandni Chauk, Delhi to Sardar Sohan Singh defendant. In that agreement the defendant agreed inter alia to carry on silk and wollen cloth business at the premises and to pay to the plaintiff commission on the sales of silk and wollen cloth at the rate of one-half per cent. No rent is to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in addition to the commission,
2. On the 15th of October 1948, Sardar Sohan Singh made an application under Section 7 of Punjab Act XIX of 1947 for the fixation of the standard rent of shop No. 209. In that ease the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Delhi Province was made a party because shop No. 209 had been declared to be evacuee property. By order passed on the 13th of December 1949, Shri Tara Chand, Additional Sub-Judge, Delhi fixed the standard rent of the premises to be rupees 80/- per mensem but on appeal the Additional District Judge, Delhi fixed the standard rent of the premises at rupees 60/- per mensem with effect from the 1st of January 1948.
3. On the 19th of November 1948. Shri Ram Nath instituted Civil Suit No. 712 of 1948 for rendition of accounts and injunction on the basis of the agreement referred to above.
4. Sardar Sohan Singh defendant resisted the suit pleading inter alia that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant created by the agreement was that of landlord and tenant.
5. In the trial Court defendant applied under Section 50 of Act No. XXXI of 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act, that the Custodian, Evacuee Property, may be added as a party to the proceedings for shop No. 209 had been declared to be evacuee property. The trial Court has, however, refused to add the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Delhi State as a party to Civil Suit No. 712 of 1948. In rejecting the application for adding the Custodian as a party to Civil Suit No. 712 of 1948 the trial Court said :
'Assuming for the sake of argument that the room in question is evacuee property, then too, it is not necessary to issue a notice to the Custodian under Section 50 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act as 'no question of evacuee property is involved in the present case'.'
Section 50 of the Act reads:
'S. 50. 'Notice of suits to the Custodian'.--
(1) If in any suit it appears to the civil or revenue Court that a question relating to 'the property of an evacuee' or an intending evacuee 'is involved', the Court shall not proceed to determine that question until after notice has been given to the Custodian.
(2) A Court may, at any stage of a suit or proceeding, either on its own motion or on application made jn this behalf by the Custodian, make an order that the Custodian shall be added as a party to the suit or proceeding, if the Court is satisfied that such addition is necessary or proper for the satisfactory determination of the suit or proceeding.'
6. Section 50(1) of the Act provides inter alia that in case a question relating to the property of an evacuee is involved in any suit the Court shall not proceed to determine that question until after notice had been given to the Custodian. The trial Court seems to think that to bring a case within Section 50 of the Act the question involved in the suit or proceeding must be a question of evacuee property. Clearly, there is a distinction between a question relating to the property of an evacuee and a question of evacuee property.
7. On the facts stated above, it cannot be maintained that no question arises in Civil Suit No. 712 of 1948 'relating' to the property of an evacuee. Shop No. 209 is evacuee property and prior to 1947 shop No. 209 was occupied by Abdul Aziz.
8. In Civil Suit No. 712 of 1948 no relief is claimed against the Custodian, but it is not necessary that any relief should be claimed against the Custodian before the Custodian can be added as a party to a suit or proceeding under Section 50 of the Act. The commission claimed by Shri Ram Nath appears to be in lieu of rent but the shop being evacuee property rent of that shop is to be paid by the defendant to the Custodian and not to the plaintiff. On the last mentioned point Ss 13 and 30 of the Act and the 'Custodian, Evacuee Property v. Simla Banking And Industrial Company', 53 Pun. L. R. 184, may be seen.
9. In my judgment the words 'question relating to the property of an evacuee' occurring in Section 50(1) of the Act are wide enough to bring questions arising in Civil Suit No. 712 of 1948, within that section. Civil Suit No. 712 of 1948, being for the enforcement of an agreement relating to evacuee property, it cannot be maintained that no question arises in Civil Suit No. 712 of 1948 relating to the property of an evacuee.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I allow Civil Revision No. 23 of 1951, set aside the order passed by the trial Court on the 13th of December 1950, and direct that the Custodian, Evacuee Property for the State of Delhi may be added as a defendant in Civil Suit No. 712 of 1948.
11. As no one appears in these proceedings for the plaintiff-respondent, I make no order as to costs.