SHRI R. N. BHAMBRI Vs. S. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Along with this appeal, this order shall dispose of the connected appeals No. S. A. O. 91 of 1969 (R.N. Bhambri Vs. Raghbir Singh), SAO. 102 of 1969 (D. P. Katyal Vs. Raghbir Singh) and SAO 108 of 1969 against, Dhan Devi Kapur Vs. Raghbir Singh in all of which a common question of law has arisen for decision. The appellants are the tenants, while the respondent is the landlord. The premises at first was evacuee property which was acquired by the Central Government under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954), (hereinafter called the Act of 1954). Subsequently the property was sold by the Government under section 20 of the Act of 1954 to the respondents with the result that the appellants became the tenants of respondents by operation of law under section 29 of the Act of 1954. The auction of the property was held on 23.3.59, presumably according to the procedure for sale of property by public auction laid down by rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1955). The sale certificate was, however, issued in favour of the landlord on 31.1.1967. In which it was probably mentioned that the title to the premises vested in the landlord with effect from 12.12.1960, when probably the provisional possession of the premises was transferred by the Government to the auction purchaser and the tenants were told by the Government that thereafter they should pay rent to the auction purchaser. The landlord filed an application for the fixation of standard rent on 30.12.1967. The tenants resisted this petition on various grounds, but the only ground relevant for our purpose is that the application was barred by time under section 12 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act of 1958), inasmuch as the tenancy between the parties, if any, commenced in 1959 or 1960, when the premises were transferred to the landlord by the Government and the tenants were told to pay rent to him. The landlord, being conscious regarding the objection of limitation which his petition was bound to face, and the tenants, being loath to admit that they were the tenants of the landlord, have both been vague and evasive in their pleadings. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition of the landlord on the preliminary ground that it was barred by limitation inasmuch as the tenancy between the landlord and the tenants commenced from 12.12.1960 as stated in the sale certificate produced by the petitioner himself. The Rent Control Tribunal, on the other hand, was of the view that until the grant of the sale certificate, the landlord could not know from which date the title to the premises vested in him and, therefore, when the tenancy between him and the tenant commenced. Consequently, he could not know when the limitation of two years prescribed by section 12 for the making of application for the fixation of standard rent would expire. It is only when he received the sale certificate that he found therein that his title to the premises related back to the 12th Dec., 1960. But this, could not have the effect that the period of limitation had already expired long before the landlord came to know the date from which the title to the premises vested in him. The Rent Control Tribunal, therefore, reversed the order of the Rent Control and remanded the case under Order 41, Rule 23, Code of Civil Procedure to the Rent Controller for the determination of standard Rent. The tenants have, therefore, come in second appeal before me. The question for decision may, therefore, be divided into two parts, viz. (a) What was the date of the commencement of the tenancy between the landlord and the tenants within the meaning of section 12 of the Act of 1958 ? and (b) When did the landlord come to know of the date of the commencement of the tenancy, so that the limitation of two years prescribed by section 12 of the Act of 1958 started to run against him ?