PARMA NAND Vs. SARUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A shop designated as No. 1254 and located in Samana town which belonged to the compensation pool was auctioned by the District Rent and Managing Officer, Patiala, on the 9th of June, 1961. The highest bid, which was for Rs. 2200/ - was made by the Respondent to whom the District Rent and Managing Officer issued a letter dated July 13, 1961 (Exhibit A/2) informing him that his bid had been accepted and that after making allowance for the amount of Rs. 220/ - received as earnest money a sum of Rs. 1,980/ - remained due from him which he was required to pay in the form of deposit in a Government treasury or by adjustment of any admissible claims, within 15 days of the receipt of the letter, which further stated that if the Respondent failed to pay the balance of the purchase price within the time stipulated the earnest money already paid by him would stand forfeited under Rule 90(14) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), and that the Respondent would have no claim to the property. On the 28th of August, 1961, the Petitioner who had been for years in occupation of the property in dispute as an allottee under the Custodian of Evacuee Property sent a letter (Exhibit A.W. 4/A) to the Respondent stating:

(2.) NO reply was sent to this letter by the Respondent who in the meantime appears to have associated with himself a person named Shrimati Devi Bai who had a claim payable by the Rehabilitation Department. On the 17th of October, (1961 ?) the District Rent and Managing Officer addressed letter Exhibit A. 3 to the Settlement Officer, Ambala, asking him to take steps to have an amount of Rs. 111 out of the claim of Shrimati Devi Bai adjusted against the purchase price payable by the Respondent. On the 6th of February, 1962, the District Rent and Managing Officer issued another letter (Exhibit A/1) to the Respondent informing him:

(3.) THE learned Controller held that in view of letters Exhibits A/1 and A/2 the Respondent became entitled to realize rent from the Petitioner with effect from 9th of June, 1961, and that the tender of Rs. 255 made to the latter was not such as to allow the Petitioner to escape the liability for eviction resulting from the non -payment of the rent. This is how he decided issue No. 1. However, he found issue No. 2 against the Respondent in view of the fact that no sale certificate had been issued in favour of the Respondent. In this connection he relied upon Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries v. L.J. Johnson and Ors. : AIR 1958 S.C. 289 and J.B. Mangharam and Company, Hyderabad v. Shri Parshotam Sarup, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, and Ors., 1962 P.L.R. 922. The decision on issue No. 3 also went against the Respondent. In the result, therefore, the application of the Respondent was dismissed on the 17th of August, 1967.