S.S.Dhavan, J. - (1.)THIS is a defendant's second appeal from the decree of the Second Civil Judge, Agra confirming that of the First Additional Munsif Agra, decreeing the, plaintiff respondent's suit for his ejectment and a recovery of Rs. 280 as damages from the appellant. The plaintiff respondent Noor Uddin alleged in his plaint that he is an owner of the house in dispute which is situate at Nala Pipal Mandi. Agra; that he let out the house to the defendant appellant on a rent of Rs. 20 per month; that the appellant falsely reported to the Custodian of Evacuee Property that the plaintiff had migrated to Pakistan with the result that the house was declared Evacuee Property and the custodian took charge of it; that when the plaintiff came to know of this fraud he took proceedings; and ultimately on 30-5-1958 the property was released under Section 16 of the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act; that when the plaintiff asked the defendant to pay rent to him the latter replied that he was paying rent to the custodian; that the plaintiff served on the appellant a notice of demand for rent and when the latter failed to pay rent served another notice terminating the tenancy and demanding possession of the house; that as the defendant did not vacate the house he filed this suit The appellant contested the suit and denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the property He also denied that the property was ever released in favour of the plaintiff and asserted that in fact it had been sold to him (defendant) by the Central Government He contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the plaintiff was not entitled to ejectment. He also contended that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid A number of other pleas were raised which need not be considered as they were not pressed before me in this appeal.
(2.)THE trial court heid that the plaintiff respondent is the owner of the house which was declared Evacuee Property but subsequently released by the Central Government under Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. It further held that the defendant was admitted to the tenancy by the Custodian but, on the realese of the property in favour of the plaintiff he became the tenant of the latter He also held that the defendant had committed default for payment of rent and was therefore liable to ejectment. The trial court disbelieved the defendant's story that he had been never the tenant of the plaintiff and also rejected the plea that the notice terminating his tenancy was invalid, and decreed the suit On appeal the learned Civil Judge confirmed the findings of the trial court and the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent. The appellant has come to this court in second appeal
Only one point was urged in support of this appeal Mr. B D Mandhvan contended that the appellant could not have been ejected from the house in dispute as he had acquired rights under an agreement of purchase between himself and the Government of India. To appreciate this argument it is necessary to relate a few facts. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent Noor Uddin applied to the Central Government under Section 16 of the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act for the release of his property which had been declared to be evacuee property. The Central Government by its order dated the 3rd of April. 1958 directed that the property be restored to him. But it also appears from the record that this very property was put up for sale by public auction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954. From the above proceedings it is obvious that the appellant purchased the house in dispute at this auction, and an agreement was executed between him and the President of India by which the former agreed to purchase and latter to sell this house for the price of Rs. 3436 The agreement states that out of the total sale price a sum of Rs. 270-50 nP had been adjusted against the compensation payable to the appellant and a sum of Rs. 1265 was payable in seven years' instalments The agreement stipulated that the ownership would be transferred only when the amount was realised in full.

(3.)THUS it appears from the record that while the Central Government restored the house in dispute to the plaintiff under Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act on 3rd April. 1958 it subsequently entered into an agreement with the defendant for the sale of the same house to him for a sum of Rs 3436 and received a substantial part of the money in advance. The date of the agreement is subsequent to that of the order of restoration, but it is very likely that the public auction in which the defendant-appellant's bid was accepted was held before the order under Section 16 was passed.