Budh Ram vs Bhagat Ram

Harbans Lal, J.—The facts of the case are given in detail in my order dated September 14, 1977. The same may be read as a part of this order.

Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, has frankly conceded that the sale certificate in respect of the property is dispute was issued by the appropriate authority in favour of the appellant on 24th of February, 1970, and further that according to the said certificate, the appellant was to be deemed to be its owner with effect from the date of auction i.e. 1st of October, 1955. Lease deed, Exhibit P 4, was executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant on 27th December, 1960. The simple question, therefore, is whether, in view of the admitted facts of the case, a suit for ejectment was maintainable in the civil court or not ?

The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in Void Har Partap Singh Datt v. Babu Ram alias Fateh Chand (1964) 66 P.L.R. (S.N.) 11 and Bahali Ram v. Chuni Lal (1968)70 P.L.R. (S.N.)19. In both these decisions, it was held that the relevant date for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of a particular authority to entertain an application or a suit, as the case may be, was the date of issuance of the sale certificate regarding evacuee property. The ratio of these decisions undoubtedly supports the contention of learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Jaimal Singh and another v. Shrimati Gini Devi alias Gini Bai (1964) 66 P.L.R. 99, in which Smt. Gini Devi purchased the premises in dispute, which formed part of an evacuee house, on 26th December, 1956. The sale was confirmed on 23rd November, 1957 and the sale certificate was issued on 30th May, 1961. However, before the issuance of the sale certificate, she filed an application on 18th June, 1960 for the ejectment of her tenants under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on the ground of personal necessity and some other grounds. One of the contentions raised was whether the eviction application under the Rent Restriction Act was maintainable or not, because on the date the eviction application was filed the sale certificate had not been issued. On the issuance of the sale certificate subsequently, she was made the owner with retrospective effect. The Division Bench held that as the purchaser had become owner of the property from the date mentioned in the sale certificate, which was the date much prior to the issuance of the sale certificate, eviction application before the Rent Controller was maintainable. I am in respectfully agreement with the ratio of this decision and, sitting singly, I am bound by the same. It is not disputed that according to the sale certificate issued in the present case the appellant had been conferred the rights of ownership in the property in dispute with effect from 1st of October, 1955 and, in view of the same, the suit for eviction could not be filed in the civil Court and only eviction application was maintainable.

It is not necessary to go into the question of the attornment by a tenant in favour of the purchaser after the purchase because the same does not fall for determination in the present case. Admittedly the respondent was brought on the property as a tenant on the basis of the lease deed, Exhibit P. 4, by the present appellant on 27th of December, 1960.

For the reasons mentioned above there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.