Bishan Paul vs Mothu Ram

G.D. Khosla, C.J.—This petition arises out of an application for the ejectment of a tenant. The property in dispute was composite property situated in Ludhiana. It was in occupation of the Petitioner when it was put up to auction by the District Competent Officer. Mothu Ram Respondent made the highest bid and the sale in his favour was confirmed on 3rd October, 1956. Soon after this the Competent Officer sent a letter to the tenant, who is the Petitioner before me, asking him to attorn to Mothu Ram and pay rent to him. The sale certificate in favour of Mothu Ram was issued on 14th December, 1956.

The application was brought by Mothu Ram for the eviction of the Petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent. This application was made on 23rd May, 1959. The Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 240 in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge and by the first date of hearing he deposited a further sum of Rs. 140.

The question now arose whether the arrears of rent due had been deposited legally by the tenant on the first date of hearing as required by the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. If the rent is to be computed from the date on which the sale was confirmed in favour of Mothu Ram, i.e., 3rd October, 1956, the amount tendered was short by a small sum of money. This in fact was found to be the case by the Rent Controller and the order of ejectment was passed by him. The order was confirmed in appeal, by the Appellate Authority.

In revision before me it has been contended that title to the property sold to Mothu Ram did not pass to him until the sale certificate in his favour had been issued. Therefore, Mothu Ram became owner of the property not on 3rd October, 1956, the date when the sale was confirmed but on 14th December, 1956 when the sale certificate was issued in his favour, and if this be the date on which Mothu Ram secured proprietary title in the property and if this be the date with effect from which the liability to pay rent to Mothu Ram arises, then the tender made by the Petitioner was good in law and no order of ejectment could be made against him.

The contention of Mr. Kaushal on behalf of the tenant is that it is on the date on which the sale certificate was issued that the title passed to the landlord. He has relied upon some observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries Vs. L.J. Johnson and Others, I have very carefully read this judgment and I do not find anything in it which supports the argument of Mr. Kaushal. In that case some evacuee property was in possession of the Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries. The property was put up to sale and was purchased by Parvatibai Wadhumal and Kakanbai Tulsimal who were Respondents in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Before the sale certificate could be issued the Managing Officer of Evacuee Property took steps to evict the occupiers. He actually ejected them and put the auction-purchasers into possession. The previous occupiers then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court from the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner evicting them and putting the auction-purchasers into possession. The argument raised before the Supreme Court was that since no sale certificate had been issued in favour of the auction-purchasers, title had not passed to them and the right to evict the occupiers vested with the Managing Officer. This argument was accepted and the appeal of the aggrieved tenants was rejected. In the concluding portion of their judgment their Lordships observed:

Mr. Purshottam Trikamdas contended that the sale certificate will in any event be granted and that once it is granted, as the form of this certificate shows, the transfer will relate back to the date of the auction. It is enough to say in answer to this contention that assuming it to be right, a point which is by no means obvious and which we do not decide, till it is granted no transfer with effect from any date whatsoever takes place and none has yet been granted.

Two things are quite clear from these observations, (i) that their Lordships had not before them the question of whether title passes only on the date when the sale certificate is granted because in that case the sale certificate had not yet been granted. In the second place their Lordships quite clearly and unequivocally stated that they were not deciding the point raised by counsel before them. There is, therefore, nothing whatsoever in the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court to support the view that when a sale certificate is actually issued it is the date of issue which is the date on which title passes to the auction-purchaser. In my view title passes when the sale is confirmed because it is that date on which the auction-purchaser is recognised officially as the owner and is entitled to obtain possession of the property. The issue of the sale certificate (sic) invariably delayed because certain routine formalities have to be complied with and it is in very (sic) cases that an office can be so prompt as to issue the sale certificate on the very day the sale is confirmed. But when a sale certificate is issued (sic) dates back to the date when the sale was confirmed.

A somewhat similar matter came up before D.K. Mahajan, J., in a revision petition. The case before him was that a landlord was seeking ejectment of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears. The sale in that case had taken place on 6th November, 1954 and it was confirmed on 22nd November, 1954. The tenant had deposited on the first date of hearing the rent due from him commencing from 22nd November, 1954 and the sale certificate was issued on 22nd November, 1956. Although Mahajan, J., observed in his judgment that it is the date of the issue of sale certificate when the auction-purchaser becomes owner of the property, in that case the tenant had deposited the arrears of rent with effect from the date of the confirmation of the sale. Therefore, there could be no question of the tenant being liable to ejectment for non-payment of arrears of rent.

It seems to me that in the present case the arrears of rent were not tendered in full as required by law and since Mothu Ram became entitled to rent from 3rd October, 1956, as this was the date from which the tenant in fact attorned to Mothu Ram on the directions issued by the Competent Officer this is the date when the tenancy began and when the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Petitioner and Moth Ram was established. That being so, Mothu Ram is entitled to claim Petitioner''s ejectment for nonpayment of rent because there was not full compliance with the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Rent Restriction Act. This revision petition must, therefore, fail and I dismiss it. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The Petitioner is allowed two months within which to vacate the premises.