MAJIT KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. GURBUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HOUSE No. 106/B Hussainpura Amritsar was an evacuees property. Amrik Singh predecessor -in -interest of the Petitioners was in occupation of the upper floor of this house. It was auctioned on 24th February, 1960 and the highest bid offered was that of Parbati mother and predecessor -in -interest of Gurbax Singh Respondent. The bid offered by Parbati was approved. The price of the house has since been adjusted from her verified claim. She was declared owner of the house on 13.7 1961 and was issued a sale certificate. The Rehabilitation authorities are stated to have since cancelled the sale certificate in view of the litigation started by Amrik Singh. The claim of Amrik Singh was that in view of the fact that value of the house had been assessed as Rs. 8073/ - he was entitled to its transfer on payment of that price. His claim was negatived by the Rehabilitation authorities. He filed a civil suit for the same relief which was dismissed on 22nd March,, 1974. He filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 14th March, 1977. Regular Second Appeal No. 1291/1977 filed by him in the High Court has also been dismissed Parbati was given possession of the house and its occupants were directed to attorn in her favour. Amrik Singh did not pay the rent to Gurbax Singh successor -in -interest of Parbati. On 1st May, 1974 Gurbax Singh filed an ejectment petition against Amrik Singh on the ground of non -payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 6/ - per month with effect from 13th October, 1961. Amrik Singh did not pay the arrears of rent and the Rent Controller vide order dated 14th March, 1977 ordered his ejectment Amrik Singh having died, the Petitioner being his legal representatives filed appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate Authority, Amritsar, vide order dated 22nd February, 1979. The Petitioners have assailed the order of the Rent Controller and that of the Appellate Authority in this revision.

(2.) THE only point argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that in view of the fact that no sale certificate has so far been issued by the Rehabilitation authorities in favour of the Respondent, the latter could not seek ejectment of the Petitioners. The contention is without merit. A near similar situation arose in Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram : A.I. R 1965 S.C. 1994, and it was held:

(3.) NO other point has been urged.