HANS RAJ BANGA Vs. RAM CHANDER AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by grant of leave has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22. 03.2002 passed by the High Court of delhi at New Delhi in Regular First Appeal no. 280 of 1982. By the impugned order the high Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree for possesinsion of the suit property and damages passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. FACTS premises in dispute is an evacuee propinerty i. e. shop no. 114, New Qutab Market, new Delhi, a Government built property in terms of Rule 2 (d) of the Displaced Perinsons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) rules, 1955 and forms part of the compeninsation pool within the meaning of Section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Compensaintion and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short "the Act")

(2.) Bhagwan Das, father and predecessor- in-interest of the defendant-respondent who was not a displaced person filed c. W. P. No. 458-D of 1958 in the Circuit bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court at Delhi seeking transfer of shop no. 114, in his favour on the ground that the same was allotted to him with effect from 10. 05.1956 by the Department and he has been regularly paying rent for the same and prayed that the same be transferred in his favour, instead of selling it in public aucintion to any other person. Shri M. S. Chadha, settlement Commissioner, Ministry of Reinhabilitation filed the counter affidavit on behalf of the Department and took the stand that the Qutab Market was constructed by the Ministry of Rehabilitation and the same forms part of the compensation pool within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act to be transferred on ownership basis to displaced persons only. It was also stated that these shops were offered as a temporary measinures to squatters (Bhagwan Dass, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent) as an alternative accommodation as they were occupying the land before the construction of the market but the same could not be transferred/sold to Shri Bhagwan Dass a squatter or to any other squatter who was not a displaced person. Similarly, certain other persons had also filed writ petitions. C. W. P. No. 438-D of 1958 and other coninnected matters were disposed of by an orinder dated 21. 09.1960 wherein it was agreed by the Department that if the Deinpartment decides to sell the shop in quesintion by auction, whether public or private, or by calling tenders, the occupier of the shop will also be given equal opportunity to give his bid or tender, as the case may be, and the bid or tender of the occupier will be considered on merits along with other bidders or tenderers, if any.

(3.) An advertisement was issued on 28.12.1960 in the papers inviting tenders for the sale of the various shops located in difinferent markets by tender. Appellant submitinted his tender along with draft no. 03260/2 dated 4.1.1961 for Rs. 350/- drawn on Union bank of India, Karol Bagh, New Delhi towards 5% earnest money. Appellant's tender being the highest was accepted and the remaining price was adjusted against the verified claim of the appellant as per Section 8 of the Act. Bhagwan Dass did not participate in the sale proceedings conducted consequent to the order dated 21. 09.1960 passed by the High court in C. W. P. No. 438-D of 1958. Sale cerintificate duly confirmed under the rules was issued in favour of the appellant in respect of shop no. 114, New Qutab Road Market, New delhi. Lease deed was also issued on 17.10. 1963 and the same was registered on 22. 02.1964 by the Sub. Registrar. By misintake in the lease deed the property was menintioned as 114, new Rajinder Nagar instead of 114, New Qutab Road which was corrected by a supplementary lease deed dated 28. 02.1967. In the supplementary lease deed it was mentioned that the area sold to the appellant was shop no. 114, New Qutab Road and not 114, New Rajinder Nagar which had been mentioned in the lease registered on 22. 02.1964. One of the conditions of sale as per advertisement was that if any of the propinerties is under the occupation of the allottees or unauthorised occupants the purchaser will be entitled to receive the rent from the teninants.