H.R. Khanna, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition filed by Parkash Nath Vatsa, Defendant -Petitioner, is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Senior Sub - Judge, Delhi, whereby he accepted the appeal of Uttam Chand Chadha, Plaintiff -Respondent, and awarded a decree for ejectment from the premises in dispute in favour of the Respondent against the Petitioner.
(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that the property in dispute, which was evacuee property, acquired by the Central Government on 1st June, 1955. The rent payable by the Petitioner, who was in occupation of the property, was fixed at Rs. 61/10/ - per mensem. The property was sold by public auction and the Respondent gave the highest bid on 14th August, 1955. The sale in favour of the Respondent was confirmed on 27th February, 1956 and the provisional possession of the property was delivered to the Respondent. On 23rd January, 1957 the office of the Custodian of Evacuee Property informed the Petitioner as per letter, Exhibit P. 2, that the sale of the property in dispute in favour of the Respondent had been confirmed. The Petitioner was accordingly directed to pay the rent of the property and deal directly with the Respondent for the period from the date of confirmation i.e., 27th February, 1956. On 25th March, 1957 the Respondent sent notice, Exhibit P. 22, through this lawyer to Petitioner stating that the Respondent had become the owner of the premises in dispute and that the standard rent of the premises was Rs. 125/ - per mensem. The Petitioner was stated to have failed to pay the standard rent. The Petitioner was, accordingly, called upon to vacate the premises and pay the entire arrears of rent within one month of the service of the notice. A number of other allegations were made in the notice but we are not now concerned with them. On 6th July, 1957 the Respondent filed the present suit for ejectment of the Petitioner from the premises in dispute. One of the grounds for ejectment was the non -payment of rent. A number of other grounds were also mentioned in the plaint but we are not now concerned with them. The Petitioner in his written statement controverted the allegations of the Respondent and stated that the Respondent was not the owner of the premises in dispute. The Petitioner also filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming that the premises in dispute should have been allotted in his favour and not sold by public auction but the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 9th December, 1958. Sale certificate about the Respondent having become owner of the property in dispute was issued on 21st January, 1959, and it was mentioned therein that the Plaintiff had become owner of the premises in dispute with effect from 27th February, 1956. The trial court held that the Respondent was the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute but found that he became owner and landlord on 21st January, 1959 and as such he had no right to claim eviction of the Petitioner on 6th July, 1957 when the suit was instituted. The Respondent's suit was, accordingly, dismissed. On appeal the learned Additional Senior Sub -Judge held that even though the sale certificate was issued in favour of the Respondent on 21st January, 1959, the title in the premises in dispute passed to the Respondent on the date when the sale was confirmed i. e., 27th February, 1956. The Petitioner was found to have failed to pay the arrears of rent inspite of notice of demand. Decree for ejectment from the premises in dispute was, accordingly, awarded in favour of the Respondent against the Petitioner.
(3.) MR . Narula, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has not challenged the finding of the lower Appellant Court that the Petitioner failed to pay the arrears of rent in accordance with the notice which was served upon the Respondent. He has, however, raised a number of other contentions and I shall deal with them seriatim. It is urged in the first instance that the sale certificate, copy of which is Exhibit P. 18, had not been issued in favour of the Respondent and as such the Respondent has not become the owner of the property in dispute before the filing of the present suit. The suit for ejectment brought on behalf of the Respondent, according to the learned Counsel, was not maintainable. Reliance in this connection is placed upon case M/S. Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries v. L. J. Johnson : A.I.R. 1958 S. C. 289, wherein it was observed that no - transfer of property sold at auction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation ) Act, could take place till the sale certificate had been issued to the highest bidder and the balance of the price had been paid. In the above -mentioned case, the -sale certificate had not been issued in favour of the auction purchaser. It was, however, argued that the sale certificate, when issued, would relate back to the date of auction. Their Lordships did not go into this matter and observed as under: - Mr. Purshotam Trikamdas contended that the certificate will in any event be granted and that once it is granted, as the form of this certificate shows, the transfer will relate back to the date of the auction. It is enough to say in answer to this contention that assuming it to be right, a point which is by no means obvious and which we do not decide, till it is granted no transfer with effect from any date whatsoever takes place and none has yet been granted." It would appear from the above observations that the question, as to what would be the effect if a sale certificate is issued mentioning that the auction purchaser had become owner with effect from a previous date, was not decided in the above cited authority and as such the Petitioner cannot derive much assistance from it. In the present case letter Exhibit P. 20 dated 27th February, 1956 issued by the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner shows that the claim of the Respondent was adjusted towards the price of the property in dispute and nothing remained due from him (the Respondent). Sale certificate, copy of which is Exhibit P. 18, was also issued in favour of the Respondent and it was distinctly stated therein that he had become the purchaser of the property in dispute with effect from 27th February, 1956. The effect of the above sale certificate, in my opinion, was that Respondent became owner of the property in dispute from 27th February, 1956. I am fortified in this view by the observations of Khosla C.J. in case Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram, (1961) 63 P.L.R. 470 the head - note of which reads as follows Held, that title in evacuee property put to auction by a competent officer passes when the sale is confirmed, because it is that date on which the auction purchaser is recognised officially as the owner and is entitled to obtain possession of the property. When a sale certificate is issue d it dates back to the date when the sale was confirmed. Therefore, failure of the tenant to pay rent to the auction purchaser from the date of confirmation renders him liable to ejectment. A similar view was taken in case Hurkishan Lal v. Bansi Lal, (1962) 64 P.L.R. 55 and it was held that once the sale certificate is granted the title of the auction -purchaser dates back to the date of the confirmation of the sale. Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram, (1961) 63 P.L.R. 470, was followed in Harhans Singh v. Sohan Singh and Anr., (1962) 64 P.L.R. 834, by Shamsher Bahadur J.. In the aforesaid case, suit for ejectment had been brought on 17th September, 1958 on grounds of nonpayment of rent and personal residence. The certificate of sale was granted in favour of the Plaintiff on 14th November, 1959 but it was added that the sale was to take effect from 16th April, 1957. It was held that the title in the property passed to the auction -purchaser from the date the sale was confirmed. The Plaintiff's petition for revision was, accordingly, accepted and a decree tor ejectment was awarded in favour of the Plaintiff.;