PARKASH NATH VATSA Vs. UTTAM CHAND CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed by Parkash Nath Vatsa, Defendant -Petitioner, is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Senior Sub - Judge, Delhi, whereby he accepted the appeal of Uttam Chand Chadha, Plaintiff -Respondent, and awarded a decree for ejectment from the premises in dispute in favour of the Respondent against the Petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that the property in dispute, which was evacuee property, acquired by the Central Government on 1st June, 1955. The rent payable by the Petitioner, who was in occupation of the property, was fixed at Rs. 61/10/ - per mensem. The property was sold by public auction and the Respondent gave the highest bid on 14th August, 1955. The sale in favour of the Respondent was confirmed on 27th February, 1956 and the provisional possession of the property was delivered to the Respondent. On 23rd January, 1957 the office of the Custodian of Evacuee Property informed the Petitioner as per letter, Exhibit P. 2, that the sale of the property in dispute in favour of the Respondent had been confirmed. The Petitioner was accordingly directed to pay the rent of the property and deal directly with the Respondent for the period from the date of confirmation i.e., 27th February, 1956. On 25th March, 1957 the Respondent sent notice, Exhibit P. 22, through this lawyer to Petitioner stating that the Respondent had become the owner of the premises in dispute and that the standard rent of the premises was Rs. 125/ - per mensem. The Petitioner was stated to have failed to pay the standard rent. The Petitioner was, accordingly, called upon to vacate the premises and pay the entire arrears of rent within one month of the service of the notice. A number of other allegations were made in the notice but we are not now concerned with them. On 6th July, 1957 the Respondent filed the present suit for ejectment of the Petitioner from the premises in dispute. One of the grounds for ejectment was the non -payment of rent. A number of other grounds were also mentioned in the plaint but we are not now concerned with them. The Petitioner in his written statement controverted the allegations of the Respondent and stated that the Respondent was not the owner of the premises in dispute. The Petitioner also filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming that the premises in dispute should have been allotted in his favour and not sold by public auction but the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 9th December, 1958. Sale certificate about the Respondent having become owner of the property in dispute was issued on 21st January, 1959, and it was mentioned therein that the Plaintiff had become owner of the premises in dispute with effect from 27th February, 1956.

(3.) MR . Narula, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has not challenged the finding of the lower Appellant Court that the Petitioner failed to pay the arrears of rent in accordance with the notice which was served upon the Respondent. He has, however, raised a number of other contentions and I shall deal with them seriatim. It is urged in the first instance that the sale certificate, copy of which is Exhibit P. 18, had not been issued in favour of the Respondent and as such the Respondent has not become the owner of the property in dispute before the filing of the present suit. The suit for ejectment brought on behalf of the Respondent, according to the learned Counsel, was not maintainable. Reliance in this connection is placed upon case M/S. Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries v. L. J. Johnson : A.I.R. 1958 S. C. 289, wherein it was observed that no - transfer of property sold at auction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation ) Act, could take place till the sale