Coll 29/28 'Meshed: office allowance and consulate buildings' [‎69r] (139/343)

1
0 OKFIS3 yriAL .
to
Copy of memorandum No. 118-20/6-A f dated Zal^ul,
X
the 9th Harch 1953, from
's Gonsuf Sistan
*1
and Kain, to the Deputy Secretary to the Government
of India In the Foreign and Political Department,
New IJe Ihi.
Beference your memorandum NoJ)373-N/33 of the
10th February, 1935.
1 . I regret that It Is has not been found
possible to ascertain locally, what would legally be
regarded as •reasonable* notice in a case of this kind,
but inasmuch as the firm have entirely abandoned the
premises for over a year, have no caretaker of any *ind
on the premises, have failed to pay any rent since 1931,
and have failed to reply to communications asking what
price they are prepared to offer lor purchase of the
land, I think that 3 months notice could not be
considered other than •reasonablei
If the Government of India are of opinion that,
under the circumstances, formal notice is necessary,
I would submit that such notice be given on their
behalf by the authorities in Karachi, since no reply
is obtainable from the firm and they might deny
receipt of the notice if sent by post from here.
2. It is difficult to foresee the action which
may be taken by the firm on receiving notice to vacate
(although as pointed out above, they have in fact
vacated the premises). The situation is complicated
by the fact that the firm claim that the main building
(a large house) is built only partly on land rented
from the Consulate, and partly on land separately owned
enclosure in py them. According to a plan on record in this office
INDIA FOREIGN SECRETARY'S ?
No *4 8 an ^ was prepared at the time the land was first
’aieo 6 WAR. 1933 rented, their contention is without the slightest
Rev; 18 \ D R 1933
" foundation, moreover, the sale of land (none of which