MOHAN LAL Vs. DIWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of C.R. Nos. 970 and 981 of 1974 as they arise out of common orders passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority and are between the same landlord and two tenants.

(2.) Diwan Chand petitioner issued separate notices to the two on 10th of July, 1968, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancies and filed the present enjectment applications of 4th/5th October, 1968, on the ground of non-payment of rent with effect from 27th May, 1956, till the date of the filing of the ejectment applications. The tenants tendered all arrears due along with interest and costs on the first date of hearing after calculating the same with effect from 31st October, 1967, till 31st December, 1968, whereas the first date of hearing was 24th December, 1968. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that at best the landlord could claim rent from 31st October, 1967, when the sale certificate was issued to him particularly on the case facts of as no information was given to the tenants about the purchase by the landlord and they paid the rent not only till that date to the Rehabilitation Department, but also till the end of December, 1967. Feeling aggrieved from the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, the landlord had come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that no ground has been made out to take a view different from that taken by the authorities below. It has not been disputed that the earlier landlord of the respondents was the Rehabilitation Department and the title passed to the present landlord only on 31st October, 1968 when the sale certificate was issued in his favour. Neither the date of auction bid nor the date mentioned in the sale certificate, i.e. 21th March, 1962, would give authority to the landlord to eject the tenants on the ground that they had not paid the rent to him from any of these dates, more so, when the facts of the case clearly go to show that till the end of 1967 the tenants were paying rent to the Rehabilitation Department, who was their landlord at least till 31st October, 1967, and for that reason they tendered the rent on the first date of hearing from 31st October, 1967 inspite of the fact that for November and December, 1967, they had paid the rent to the Rehabilitation Department.