Hari Chand and others vs Chamba Ram and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, dated October 19, 1987, whereby the sale certificate issued by Rehabilitation Department under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'')was not allowed to be produced on record as the same was not a registered one.

During the pendency of this revision, the landlord Petitioner Hari Chand died. Civil Miscellaneous No 15-CII(sic) of 1989 was moved in this Court for bringing his legal representatives on record The said civil miscellaneous application is allowed and the persons mentioned therein are allowed to be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased.

During the ejectment proceedings, the landlord Hari Chand wanted to exhibit the original sale certificate issued by the Rehabilitation Department in his evidence. This was objected to on behalf of the tenant-Respondents on the ground that this sale certificate requires compulsory registration u/s 17 of Registration Act. as the suit property was purchased by the landlord in public auction for Rs. 38 500/- from the Department. Thus, according to the tenant, the said certificate could not be exhibited. The contention of the tenants prevailed with the Rent Controller. In this behalf, he placed reliance on a judgment of Allahabad High Court reported in Mazharul Islam v. Kacher Bux A.I. R. 1959 all. 554 and came to the conclusion that since Section 17 of the Rsgistration Act requires compulsory registration of a property worth more than Rs. 100/-, the same could not be produced in evidence unless registered. According to the learned Rent Controller, there was no authority or law cited by the landlord which exempted the registration of sale certificate sought to be produced by the landlord.

At the time of motion hearing Harbans Singh V. Sohan Singh (1962) 64 P. L. R. 834 was cited to contend that the sale certificate issued by the Rehabilitation Department does not require registration. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the view taken by the learned bent Controller was wholly wrong and illegal. Even the judgment relied upon by him has made the distinction between the certificate issued by the custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and the sale certificate issued by the Managing; Director under the Displaced Persons (C &S) Act, 1954. He also cited Sukhdev Raj Nanda v. P. D Ahuja I. L.R. 1974(1) Del 681 to contend that the sale certificate did not require registration On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the view taken in Harbans Singh v. Sohan Singh (supra) was not the authority for the said proposition as it did not give any reason. According to the learned Counsel, Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act lays down that every managing officer selling any immovable property by public auction under Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a Revenue Officer within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 89 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. According to the learned Counsel, he could not be said to be a revenue officer as contemplated under Clause 12 of Sub-Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and, therefore, the sale certificate issued by the managing director requires compulsory registration. In support of his contention, he referred to 1908 PLR 142 (4) and A. I. R. 1935 Mad. 55.

After herring the learned Counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner. As regard this Court, the matter stands concluded in Harbans Singh v. Sohan Singh, it was held that "it seems to me that it is not necessary for this document to be registered and the Senior Subordinate Judge had no warrant to hold that the sale certificate without registration could not vest a valid title in the landlord" Similarly in Mazahul Islam''s case the distinction was made between the certificate issued by the custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and the sale certificate issued under the Rehabilitation Act Para 9 therein reads as under:

It is relevant to notice that in a pari materia statute the Legislature has expressly dispensed with the necessity of a written and registered sale deed in respect of a property worth more than Rs 100/-. Section 20(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, eqables the Managing Officer to transfer a property out of compensation pool by sale of such property to a displaced person or to any other person whether the property is said by public auction, or otherwise. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 expressly provides that every Managing Officer selling any immovable property under Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a Revenue Officer within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 89 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Rule 90(15) made under the said Acts the Managing Officer to issue a sale certificate to the purchaser in the form specified in Appendix XXII or XXIII, as the case may be. A certified copy of the sale certificate shall be sent by him to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property to which the certificate relates is situate. It was quite easy for the Legislature to adopt this very device in relation to the sales made by the Custodian. But the legislature did not do so.

Shri Sukhdev Raj Nanda v. Shri P. D, Ahuja was a case under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Rules, 1951, wherein it was held that the certificate of sale issued under Rule 11-E of Evacue Interest (Separation) Rules by the competent Officer did not require registration. The judments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondents have no applicability to the facts of the present case As a matter of fact, the Act is of the year 1954 and any authority prior thereto was not relevant to hold that the sale certificate issued by the Managing Director under the Act requires registration.

Reference may also be made to Clause 15 of Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. which provides that "when the purchase price has been realised in full from the auction purchaser, the Managing Officer shall issue to him a sale certificate in the form specified in Appendix XXXII or XXXIII, as the case may be. A certified copy of the sale certificate shall be sent by him to the Reistering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property to which the certificate relate is situated. If the auction purchaser is displaced person and has associated with himself any other displaced person having a veaified claim whose net compensation is to be adjusted in whole or in part against the purchase price, the sale Certificate shall be made out jointly in the name of all such persons and shall specify" the extent of interest of each of the property."

In the light of above discusion, this petition succeeds; the impugned rder is set aside and it is directed that the sale certificate issued by the Rehabilitation Department be allowed to be produced in evidence by the landlord. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on February 17,1989.

Since the ejectment application was filed in the year 1984, it is directed that the parties will lead their evidence at then own responsibility for which only one opportunity will be afforded to each party.