J.M.TANDON, J. - (1.) B .D. Bansal respondent purchased evacuee house No. 1404 Ward No. 2, Jagadhri on August 23, 1962. In September, 1974, he filed a petition for ejectment of Shakuntla petitioner therefrom. He alleged that Nanak Singh, father of the petitioner, was a tenant of the house under him. The petitioner being the heir of Nanak Singh became a tenant of the house after the death of her father Nanak Singh in August, 1972. The ejectment was claimed on the following two grounds : (1) The petitioner was in arrears of rent with effect from August 1, 1971. (2) The petitioner has sub-let a portion of the house without his consent. The petitioner in her written statement denied that she or her father was the tenant of the house under the respondent. She averred that her father had been allotted the house in dispute by the Custodian Department on monthly rent of Rs. 3/- in 1947. Her father paid rent to the Custodian Department for a few years and no rent was paid for the last more than 13/14 years.
(2.) THE Rent Controller framed the following issues :- (1) Whether petitioner (now respondent) is the owner of the property in question ? (2) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, if so, what effect ? (3) Whether this Court has Jurisdiction to try this application ? The Rent Controller vide order dated December 5, 1975, found issues Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the respondent and issue No. 2 against her. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not tendered the arrears of rent she was ordered to be ejected. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated July 27, 1976. The petitioner has assailed the order of the Appellate Authority in the present revision. The sole point to be considered in this case is whether the petitioner is a tenant of the house in dispute under the respondent or not ? It is conceded that if she is held to be a tenant of the house under the respondent then she would be liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. It is not disputed that the Custodian had allotted the house in dispute to Nanak Singh, father of the petitioner, some time after the partition of the country on the monthly rent of Rs. 3/-. The respondent purchased the house from the Rehabilitation authorities in August, 1962. It is not proved that Nanak Singh had cleared the arrears of rent when the respondent purchased the house or within 60 days of the date of his purchase. According to the petitioner, her father stopped paying rent to the Custodian 13/14 years before November, 1974, when she filed the written statement. The case of the petitioner, therefore, is that her father had stopped paying the rent to the Custodian in about 1960 or 1961.
(3.) THE relevant part of section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (hereafter the Act) reads : "(1) Where any person to whom the provisions of this section apply, is in lawful "possession" of any immovable property of the class notified under sub-section (2), which is transferred to another person under the provisions of this Act, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, such person shall, without prejudice to any other right which he may have in the property, be deemed to be a tenant of the transferee on the same terms and conditions as to payment of rent or otherwise on which he held the property immediately before the transfer : (a) - - - - - - - - - - (b) - - - - - - - - - - (2) The Central Government may, from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the class of persons to whom and the class of immovable property in the compensation pool, other than agricultural land, in respect of which, the provisions of this Section shall apply and in issuing any such notification the Central Government shall have regard to the following matters, that is to say, - (a) - - - - - - - - - - (b) - - - - - - - - - - (c) - - - - - - - - - - (d) - - - - - - - - - -" ;