BALDEV RSJ BATRA Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal arising out of a suit for possession and recovery of damages for wrongful use and occupation. The property involved is a portion of building No. 2674 Bhagat Singh Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi which was acquired evacuee property auctioned to the plaintiff on 26th June, 1959. The highest bid of the plaintiff No I was accepted and a sale certificate effective from 28th December, 1960 was issued on 28th February, 1965. The claim was that the first defendant was in occupation of a portion of the property and his status was that of a trespasser becasuse his possession was never confirmed or regularised by the Custodian Evacuee Property/Managing Officer. Alternatively it was pleaded that he was not protected as he had not paid the arrears of rent to the Custodian. As far as the second defendant was con cerned, it was claimed that she was in occupation on behalf of the first defendant and she had no independent right at all in the property. The court framed certain issues on which the decision was that the plaintiff was the owner of the property and that the defendant was not a tenant and accordingly the suit was decreed. On appeal the judgment and decree were confirmed by the Additional District Judge.

(2.) The main controversy in the case was about the rights of the appellant in the property. Being an acquired evacuee properly, the lawful occupants' in the property were protected by Section 29 of the displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. That section states that the class of persons notified under it would become tenants and would not be liable to ejectment for a period of two years Acting under this provision the Central Government issued SRO 2219 declaring the persons who were protected by the Act Those persons were (a) lawful occupants from whom no arrears of rent was due ;(b) lawful occupants who cleared the arrears of rent within sixty days of the transfer, (c) displaced persons having preferred claims in excess of the arrears of rent and (d) displaced persons having verified claim but in whose case the arrears of rent exceeded the amount of compensation. Then he had to pay the extra amount within sixty days of the transfer.

(3.) Clearly if the appellants were lawful occupants' they will be protected under Section 29. So. the only point for consideration before the court is whether the appellants were lawful occupants. All other points are of minor importance.