ABDUL GHAFOOR Vs. ASA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent landlord became the owner of the premises by purchasing them at an auction sale. The premises were formerly evacuee property acquired by the Central Government which had become a part of the compensation pool under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act of 1954). The appellant was in lawful possession of the premises before the auction purchase by the respondent. The respondent filed an application for the eviction of the appellant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act of 1958) but without having given him a notice to quit on the principle underlying section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant resisted the eviction proceeding on the ground that he had become a tenant under section 29 of the Act of 1954 by complying with its requirements. The landlord respondent on the other hand contended that the appellant had become only a statutory tenant in the sense that he had no contractual tenancy in his favour but enjoyed only the protection of the Act of 1958 and it was, therefore, not necessary for the landlord to have given the tenant any notice to quit. For, only a contractual tenancy had to be determined by a notice to quit. A statutory tenancy did not have to be so determined.

(2.) The contention of the tenant did not find favour either with the Controller or with the Rent Control Tribunal and an order for eviction in favour of the landlord and against the tenant was passed by both of them. Hence this second appeal by the tenant.

(3.) Prima facie, the word "tenant" was used by the Legislature in its ordinary meaning. The ordinary meaning of a tenant is that the tenant has an interest in the property. This interest may be created either by a transfer inter vivos or by the operation of law. The nature and the quantum of the interest created by either of these methods is the same. Whether a person acquired tenancy by contract with the landlord or whether the tenancy devolves on a person either by inheritance or by operation of law, the rights of the tenant would be the same. An obvious analogy is the acquisition of title by a private purchase and the acquisition of title by an auction purchase. In either case, it is only the right, title and interest of the seller or the judgment debtor which is acquired by the purchaser or the auction purchaser. There is no difference in the nature or the quantum of the title. The principle will hold good whether the tenancy is acquired by way of a contract between the parties or the tenancy is acquired under section 29 of the Act of 1954.