SHRI THARU RAM Vs. DHARAM BIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that requires determination in this petition for revision is whether the previous decision interpartis by the Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner operates as res -judicata in a suit filed by the transferee of the government -built property for the eviction of its occupant, who had laid claim to that property at the time of transfer.

(2.) THE premises in dispute admittedly are government built property. In July 1950 they were allotted to Dharmvir Respondent. Dharmvir took possession of the same. After some time in June, 1951. he left for Bikaner. He, however, put the Petitioner, Tharu Ram, in possession of the property. In 1954, Dharmvir asked Tharu Ram to vacate the premises, but Tharu Ram did not do so. In 1956, Dharmvir returned from Bikaner. But in the meantime, an application had been made by Tharu Ram to the Rehabilition Department for transfer of the premises to him. He claimed to be in possession of the premises in his own right and prayed that his possession be regularised and the property be transferred to him in lieu of his claim. It may be mentioned that both Tharu Ram and Dharmvir are displaced persons holding verified claims. This application was resisted by Dharmvir. The case of Dharmvir was that the possession of Tharu Ram was merely that of a caretaker while on the other hand the stand taken up by Tharu Ram was that his possession was that of a sub -tenant under Dharmvir. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner decided that the property should be transferred to Dharmvir as he was in its occupation in his own right. According to Rule 41 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules -hereinafter referred to as the Rules -transfer could only be made to a displaced person in occupation of the property. Rule 41 is in these terms:

(3.) THE present suit was filed by Dharmvir against Tharu Ram for his eviction. The defence of Tharu Ram was that he was a tenant of Dharmvir. In replication the Plaintiff has raised the plea that this defence is barred by the rule of res judicata by reason of the decision of the competent authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, wherein it has been held that Tharu Ram is merely a caretaker of the property in dispute and not a sub -tenant. This plea prevailed with the trial Court and it has been held that the suit is barred by the constructive rule of res judicata. The Court below has relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Shrimati Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen : A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 33 and M. S. M. Sharma v. Shree Krishna Sinha : A.I.R. 1960 S.C 1186 and another decision of the Lahore High Court in Hira Lal v. Lal Chand : A.I.R 1929 Lah 86 It is against this decision that the present petition for revision has been preferred by Tharu Ram.