Mohar Singh vs Mool Chand

Falshaw C., J.—This is a revision petition filed by a tenant whose ejectment was ordered by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Authority.

The grounds for ejectment were non-payment of arrears of rent and the personal requirement of the landlord. The first ground disappeared by the deposit of the arrears with costs and interest by the tenant on the first hearing.

On the other point both the learned Rent Controller and the-learned Appellate Authority have held that the landlord Mool Chand had succeeded in establishing his bona fide requirement as he is a resident of a village called Parkhotampur and the house in dispute is situated in the town of Rewari where the landlord wanted to take up his residence for the purpose of putting his son in the local High School. There is no ground for differing in revision from this finding.

The main point raised was one which was apparently not taken in the proceedings before the Rent Cortroller, but was raised for the-first time in appeal. The relevant facts are that the house in suit was-an evacuee property and it was purchased by the landlord when put to auction by the Custodian on the 25th of June 1957. The sale was confirmed on the 31st of October 1957, but the sale certificate was only issued on the 17th of December 1959 presumably after the last instalment of the price had been paid. The landlord instituted his petition to eject the tenant on the 2nd of May 1960.

On behalf of the tenant reliance was placed on the provisions of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The relevant portion of Sub-section (1) reads-

where any person to whom the provisions of this section apply is in lawfull possession of any immovale property of the class notified under sub''section (2) which is transferred to another person" under the provisions of this Act, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law such person shall, without prejudice to any other right which he may have in the property, be deemed to be a tenant of the transferee on the same terms and conditions as to payment of rent or otherwise on which he held the property before the transfer:

Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any such terms and conditions, no such person shall be liable to be ejected from the property during such period not exceeding two years as may be prescribed in respect of that class of property, except on any of the following grounds, namely:

The grounds specified thereafter include some of the grounds on which ejectment can be ordered under the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act, but they do not include the ground of bona fide personal requirement.

The argument advanced on behalf of the tenant is that in view of these provisions the landlord was not even entitled to file a petition under the Rent Restriction Act for the ejectment of the tenant until the l.th of December 1961 i. e. two years from the date on which the sale certificate was issued.

Reliance was placed on certain observations of D. K. Mahajan J. in Ranjit Singh v. Anup Singh, C. W. No. 524 of 1959, decided on the 3rd of August 1960, to the effect that the two years'' protection mentioned in Section 29 of the Act would start from the date on which the sale certificate was issued. It is difficult to see how the point of protection arose in that case in which the petition was in any case filed more than two years after the date of the sale certificate, and the expression of opinion is an obiter dictum. On the other hand in Bishan Paul v. Motu Ram, (1961) 63 P. L. R. 470 G. D. Khosla C. J. held that the title in evacuee property put to auction by a competent officer passed 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 and when a sale certificate is issued it dates back to the date when the sale was confirmed. It was thus held that the failure of the tenant to pay rent to the auction purchaser from the date of confirmation renders him liable to ejectment.

I agree with the view that even when a sale certificate is issued later it dates back to the date when the sale was confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser and that an auction-purchaser can sue to eject the tenant two years after the date of confirmation of the sale. The sale in this case was confirmed in October 1957 the ejectment appliction was filed 21/2 years later on the 2nd of May 1960. I thus see no reason to interfere and dismiss the revision petition, but leave the parties to bear their own costs and allow the tenant two months from today to vacate the premises.