S.D.Agarwala - (1.) -This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute relates to house no. 4/30/3, situate at Mohalla Dodhpur, Aligarh. This is popularly known as ' Peeli Kothi '. This Peeli Kothi and another main building is popularly known as ' Sir Syed House '. They are within one compound. They originally belonged to Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the founder of the Aligarh Muslim University. After the heirs of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan migrated to Pakistan, the said property was declared as evacuee property and the said property vested in the custodian by virtue of an order dated 15th July, 1955. Since it belonged to the founder of the University, the University approached the Central Government for its transfer in favour of the Aligarh Muslim University as the University was taken to have the same for solmen purpose of establishing ' Founder Memorial '. The Central Government acceded to this request and also provided funds for its purchase by the University. In the year 1960, a public auction was held and the bid of the University was accepted. A sale certificate was issued consequently, on 31st October 1960 and in consequence thereof, the conveyance deed dated 22nd September, 1971 was prepared and was registered on 14th January, 1972. The disputed property was temporarily given to Syed Zafaryab Hussain Zaidi as he was on deputation as accounts officer in the University. He was only permitted to occupy the accommodation during the term of his service in the University. He was living in this accommodation merely as a licensee and not as a tenant. When Mr. Zaidi vacated the accommodation, the University took possession of the same.
(2.) THE petitioner previously was an employee of the University and the allotment committee of the University, on his request, by virtue of his being a University employee, allotted another accommodation to him for his occupation as an University employee during the term of his service. THE accommodation which was allotted to him, was a portion ' C ' of a kothi known as ' Safdar Manzil After the services of the petitioner were terminated, he was required to vacate the accommodation. He did not do so and, consequently, a suit was filed against him and he was evicted in pursuance of the decree passed by the court below. The petitioner without disclosing this fact that he has been evicted from the Safdar Manzil as his services were ceased with the University applied for allotment of the accommodation in dispute. The allotment order was passed on 6th November, 1970. On 23rd November, 1970 when the University came to know of the same, it filed objections to the effect that the accommodation could not be allotted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the allotment order was obtained on the basis of misrepresentation and fraud. Consequently, the operation of the allotment order was stayed on 23-11- 1970, but before the order was stayed, the petitioner, on 21-11-1970 broke open the locks of the accommodation and took possession of the same. The objections of the University were initially dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Against the said order, the University filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge, Aligarh. The District Judge, Aligarh allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for disposal of the application of the University in accordance with law. This order was passed on 13th November 1973. After remand, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer set aside the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner dated 6-11-1970 on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and mis-representation. This order was passed on 4th July, 1979. A revision was filed against the said order under section 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said revision was dismissed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Aligarh on 11-12-1980 upholding that the order was obtained by the petitioner by practising fraud and misrepresentation and also upholding that in fact, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction at all to make an allotment in respect of the premises in suit. The petitioner has now challenged both the orders dated 4th July 1979 aswell as the order dated 11th December, 1980 by means of the present writ petition. In my opinion, the sole question to be determined is whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on the date when the allotment order was passed, had the jurisdiction to pass the same or not. If he had the jurisdiction then only the other questions arise, otherwise the allotment order would be void as having been passed by an authority having no jurisdiction to do so.
(3.) IN Manohar Lal v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly, AIR 19S9 Alld. 388 Hon'ble J. K. Tandon, as he then was, after examining the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, aswell as the rules framed thereunder, held that by the mere auction of the property, the sale does not become complete. It is only when the sale certificate is issued that the sale becomes final. It is the issue of this document by the managing officer which puts final seal to the transaction and results in the sale of the property to the auction purchaser. Until this is done, the property continues to be evacuee property and whatever rights the auction purchaser may have, he cannot claim to be its owner. In M/s. Bombay Sale and Chemical Industry v. L. J. Johnson, AIR 1958 SC 289 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider as to what is the effect of auction held under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, it held as follows : " It is clear from the rules and the conditions of sale set out above that the declaration that a person was the highest bidder at the auction does not amount to a complete sale and transfer of the property to him. The fact that the bid has to be approved by the Settlement Commissioner shows that till such approval which the Commissioner is not bound to give, the auction purchaser has no right at all. It would further appear that even the approval of the bid by the Settlement Commissioner does not amount to a transfer of property for the purchaser has yet to pay the balance of the purchase money and the rules provide that if he fails to do that he shall not have any claim to the property. The correct position is that on the approval of the bid by the Settlement Commissioner, a binding contract for the sale of the property to the auction- purchaser comes into existence. Then the provisions as to the sale certificate would indicate that only upon the issue of it a transfer of property takes place." From these authorities, it is clear that the mere auction in favour of the University did not confer title on the University and the property continued to remain with the Custodian.;