RAM PARKASH Vs. SUNDER DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal the question for consideration is the executability of decree obtained by Sunder Dass Respondent on July 31, 1960, for eviction of Ram Parkash Appellant from the property in question.

(2.) THE property was acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act 44 of 1954), and was in the compensation pool for purposes of payment of compensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced persons. It was put to auction and the highest bidder, was the Respondent on September 5, 1955. His bid was accepted on September 23, 1955. He paid the price. The sale was confirmed in his favour. The sale certificate has not been issued under the provisions of the last mentioned Act and the Rules thereunder. A letter of September 3 and 4, 1956, informed the Appellant that provisional possession of the property was given to the auction -purchaser, the Respondent, and directed him to pay rent to the Respondent and otherwise deal with him direct with effect from August 30, 1956. The Respondent alleged that he had leased the property to the Appellant on September 1, 1956. On August 10, 1959, he served a notice, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act 4 of 1882), upon the Appellant terminating the tenancy. In this notice the Respondent pointed out that he had created the tenancy in favour of the Appellant on September 1, 1956. The Appellant replied to that notice on August 31, 1959, saying that the Respondent had leased the property to him long before September 1, 1956, and disputing the quantum of the rent. On September 15, 1959, the Respondent instituted the suit for the eviction of the Appellant and all that is material for the present purpose is that he stated in the plaint that he had leased the property to the Appellant on September 1, 1956. The Appellant in his written statement said that the lease of the property had been given to him in December, 1954, and, apart from questioning the quantum of rent, he challenged the right of the Respondent to lease the property on the ground that he had no title to or in it. He also contested the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit on the ground that the matter was to be disposed of by the proper authorities under the provisions of Act 44 of 1954 and the Rules thereunder. There was a decision of a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction by the trial Court on June 11, 1960, in which the learned Judge found that it being; the case of both the parties that the property was leased by the Respondent to the Appellant, there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and* so the civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. Subsequently by his judgment of July 31, 1961, while decreeing the claim of the Respondent for eviction of the Appellant, the learned Judge found that the Appellant was, in possession of the property - -the shop - -before September 1, 1956.

(3.) THE Appellant's first appeal against that decree failed on December, 1, 1962, and the second appeal on December 10, 1962. The decree thus became final between the parties. It was a decree, when granted, made by the Court having jurisdiction to grant it. As stated, it was a decree which is consistent with a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Roshan Lal Goswami's case. It was thus a valid and an executable decree.