HIDAYATULLAH, J.: - (1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) IN this appeal by special leave the appellant is the tenant of the respondent and occupies a shop situated on the Grand Trunk Road, Ludhiana. The High court of Punjab by the judgment under appeal, dated 10/04/1961 dismissed a revision petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the appellant by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The appellant entered into possession as tenant in 1944 and the monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 12.00. The original landlord became an evacuee and as the property was composite, the District Competent Officer auctioned this property on 19/05/1956 and the highest bid was by the respondent. The hid was approved on 3/10/1956 and the sale certificate was issued to the auction-purchaser on 4/12/1956. On 3/10/1956 the appellant received a letter (Ex. R. 17) from the District Rent and Managing Officer. Ludhiana, informing him that as the sale was confirmed by the Competent Officer on 3/10/1956 he should pay the rent to the respondent from that date. The appellant alleged that he had tendered rent at Rs. 12.00 per month to the respondpent who did not accept it but demaned Rs. 20.00 per month. He further alleged that he had sent a money order for Rs. 12.00 and another for Rs. 21.00 which were refused by the respondent. The appellant deposited on 16/07/1958, Rs. 210.00 and Rs. 144.00 on 25/05/1959 in the court of Senior Sub-Judge, Ludhiana (vide Exs. R. 18 and R. 20). In this way the appellant deposited lent for 32 months from Octobel 30, 195 6/06/1959 at Rs. 12.00 per month. Meanwhile, on 22/05/1959 the respondent made an application to the Rent Controller. Ludhiana under S. 13 of the Acl for the eviction of the appellant. He staled in that application that the rent of rent of the shop was Rs. 20.00 per month and it had not been paid from 3/10/1956. He also alleped that the appellant had made materail alterations in the shop and put it to use other that that for which if was taken on rent. The Controller by his order, dated 12/04/1960 held that the standard rent was Rs. 12.00 and not Rs. 20.00. He held the other grounds not proved but ordered the eviction because the appellant had deposited the second amount three days after the petition of the respondent had been filed for eviction and the total amount deposited was not equal to the full rent, costs and interest as required by the Act. 'Ihe amount deposited was found to be short by Rs. 4-12-0. The tenant appealed and contended that the tenancy commenced on 4/12/1956, and not on October 3, 1956. He applied for amendment of his pleadings to plead the above fact relying upon a ruling of this court reported in Bonbay Salt and Chemical Industries,v. L. J. Johnson AIR 1958 SC 289. He contended that if the commencement of the tenancy was taken to be the date on which the certificate was granted to the auction-purchased the amount of rent deposited by him was in excess of the amount due from him and he had not fortited the tenancy . The Appellate Authority did not accept the contention .It held that the appellant had paid Rs. 1.19 to the Custodian as rent for the first teo days of Octiber and had accept ed the respondent as his landlord form 3/10/1956 and begun to deposit rent from that date. He was held, therefore, to be estopped under. S.116 of the Indian Evidence Act from denying the title of the respondent between lant asked for relief against forfeiture but it was rejected in view of the ruling of the Punjab high court in Debi, v. Desa Ramji Lal, 56 Pun LR 284: (AIR 1951 Punj 231), The tenant filed a Revision Petition in the High court. It was dismissed by the order now under appeal, Only one question appears to have been raised in the High court, namely, when did title pass to the auction-purchaser? The High court dismissed the revision application holding that title passed to the auction purchaser on the confirmation of the sale and not when the sale certificate was issued to him. The High court distinguished the ruling of this court above referred to. In this appeal it is contended that the High court was wrong in not following the above ruling which applied applied fully to this case. It is further submitted that the decision of the Punjab High court in 56 Pun LR 284 : (AIR 1954 Punj 231), is erroneous and requires to be reversed. It may be stated at on that there is no proof on record that the standard rent was tendered by money order by the appellant. The only money order receipts are Rs. 27.00 and Rs. 28.00 but they show tender of rent respectively for two months from 24/01/1957 and for four months from April to July, 1959 These receipts neither cover the period from 3/10/1956 nor from 4/12/1956. Thus the only question are (a) whether the deposits made by the appellant are adequate under S. 13 or not and (b) if not whether there should be any relief against fortfeiture. 1996
(3.) THE property belonged to the compensation pool and was transferred under the provisions of S, 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954). THE procedure for sale of property in the compensation pool is laid down in Ch. XIV of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. THE Ch. is self-contained and deals with the mode of sale of properly; persons who may bid at sales; persons not eligible to purchase; the procedure for sale of property by auction; and the procedure for setting aside the sale. Unfortunately, the Rules do not indicate clearly the point of time from which the title of the auction-purchaser is to commence as is done by S. 65 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Neither side claims to apply the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the case was argued on the basis of the Rules to determine the time from which title can be said to commence. Before we consider the argument and also refer to certain rulings in which these Rules have been considered, we may set out the material rules here: "90. Procedure for sale of property by public auction- (3) Notice of the Intended sale shall be given at least fifteen days before the proposed sale, the description of the property to be sold, its location and boundaries where possible, the terms and conditions of the sale and any other particulars which the Settlement Commissioner or other officer considers material. One copy of the notice shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property to be sold. It shall be within the discretion of the Settlement Commissioner or other officer to advertise the sale in newspapers and in such other manner as he may deem fit. (5) Every auction of a property under these rules shall be subject to a reserve price fixed in respect of the property, but such reserve price may not be disclosed. (8) THE person declared to be the highest bidder for the property at the public auction shall pay in cash or by a cheque drawn on a scheduled bank and endorsed "good for payment upto six months" or in such other form as may be required by the Settlement Commissioner, immediately on the fall of the hammer a deposit not exceeding 10 per cent of the amount of his bid to the officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property may be resold. (9) THE initial deposit shall be refunded if the net compensation exceeds the purchase price. (10) THE bid in respect of which the initial deposit has been accepted shall be subject to the approval of the Settlement Commissioner or an officer appointed by him for the purpose; Provided that no bid shall be approved until after the expiry of a period of seven days from the date of the auction. (11) Intimation of the approval of a bid or its rejection shall be given to the highest bidder (hereinafter referred to as the auction purchaser) by registered post acknowledgment due and the auction purchaser shall where the bid has been accepted be required within fifteen days of the issue of such intimation to send by registered post or to produce before the Settlement Commissioner or any other officer appointed by him for the purpose, a treasury challan in respect of the deposit of the balance of the purchase money. (14) If the auction purchaser does not deposit the balance of the purchase money within the period specified in sub-r. (11).. .. .... he shall not have any claim to the property. (15) When the purchase price has been realised in full from the auction purchaser, the Managing Officer shall issue to him a sale certificate in the form specified In Appendix XXII or XXIII, as the case may be. A certified copy of the sale certificate shall be sent by him to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property to which the certificate relates is situated. If the auction purchaser is a displaced person and has associated with himself any other displaced person having a verified claim whose net compensation is to be adjusted in whole of in part against the purchase price, the sale certificate shall be made out jointly in the name of all such persons: Provided that if it is agreed in writing by all concerned that the sale certificate may be made out ill the name of the auction purchase the sale certificate may be made out In the name of auction purchaser, 92. Procedure for setting aside a sale, (2) Every application for setting aside sale under this rule shall be made- (a) where the sale is made by public auction within seven days from the cate of the acceptance of the bid; We may also reproduce here the certificare 1997 which was granted to the respondent on 4/12/1956 "This is to certify that Shri Mothu Ram son of Shri Jharu Mal Aggarwal by caste resident of Ludhiana is the purchaser at a sale by public auction held on the 19th day of May, 1956 (confirmed on 3/10/1956) in pursuance of the powers conferred upon me under S. 10 of the Evacuee Interest (Separate) Act. 1951 (LXIV of 1951) and the Rule made thereunder. Given under my hand and the scal of my office this 4th day of December, 1956. * * * * * * * * Signature Sd/- District Competent Officer, Ludhiana 11/12." Before we consider the two questions which arise in this case we may clear a doubt which was raised at the hearing. It is now evident from Ex. E filed by the appellant himself with his petition for urging additional grounds (C. M. P. No. 2121) that the sale was for Rs. 94,500.00 and the purchase price was paid as follows: JUDGEMENT_1994_AIR(SC)_1965Html1.htm This shows that the total purchase price was paid long before 3/10/1956 when the highest bid was approved. The certificate could have been given at any time after August 4, 956. The rules which we have earlier reproduced show that the auction is held on a date fixed and is subject to a reserve price which is confidential. The officer conduction the sale declares at the fall of hammer who is the highest bidder. The highest bid is subject to the approval of the Settlement Commissioner or an officer appointed by him, A period of seven days must elpsse before the bid is approved and there is alos a limitation of seven days from the acceptance of the bid for making an application to set aside the sale. If the bid is Approved and if no application meanwhile for setting aside, the sale is made the highest bidder is recognised as the auction purchaser and he is required to produce a treasury challan in respect of the balance of the purchase money within a period of fifteen days (which period may be extended without limit of time before the Settlment Commissioner or the officer appointed by him. When the full purchase price is paid a certificate issues in Form No. XXII and is sent to the Sub-Registraar for registration. If Ithe balance of the price is not paid, the amount of advance in de posit is forfeited and the auction purchaser has no claim to the property. ;