Satya Parkash Goyal, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was referred by me to a larger Bench because the binding nature of the judgment of Tewatia, J. in Regular Second Appeal No. 1143 of 1968 (Gurdit Singh v. The Union of India) decided on May 21st, 1970, was challenged by the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 Gurdit Singh.
(2.) THIS case has a long and chequered history and the facts leading to this petition are that on June 29th, 1955, evacuee property No. W.D. 6 situate in Bazar Sheikhan, Jullundur, was auctioned in favour of the petitioner and his father, Lachhman Dass (since deceased) for a sum of Rs. 45,700/ - and the auction confirmed on October 30th, 1956. As a result of the said auction, the District Rent and Managing Officer, Jullundur, served a notice (Annexure P -2) on the allottees in occupation of the said property, including respondent No. 5, informing them that in view of the transfer of the said property in favour of the petitioner, their allotment stood cancelled and that they should attorn in favour of the petitioner and pay rent to him with effect from October 30th, 1956. On receipt of this notice, respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, on the ground that the room in his possession was a separate entity bearing No. W.B. 6 wherein he was running his business. His plea was, however, declined and the appeal filed by him dismissed by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated July 12th, 1958 (Annexure P4). Still dissatisfied, he filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, which was also dismissed vide order dated July 20th, 1960 (Annexure P.5) by the Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Thereafter, the sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner and his father on December 21, 1961, wherein the boundaries of property No. W.D. 6 were given as under: - - East : Rainak Bazar. West : Street & W.D. 7. North: Street. South: Mosque & W.D. 5. The petitioner, after securing the sale certificate in his favour, moved an application in the Court of the Rent Controller for ejectment of respondent No. 5 on the ground of user and vide order dated March 19, 1964, it was held that the relationship of landlord and tenant sub -sifted between the parties but the application was dismissed because the petitioner failed to substantiate the ground of conversion of user. The petitioner again moved an application on April 15, 1964, for the ejectment of respondent No. 5 on the ground of non -payment of the rent. The Rent Controller, Jullundur, vide judgment dated January 28, 1966 (Annexure P -12) again held that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties. After having failed before the Rehabilitation Authorities and the Rent Controller, respondent No. 5 filed a regular suit in the Court of Sub -Judge 1st Class, Jullundur, against the petitioner and the Union of India for a declaration that shop No. W.B. 6 was not a part of property No. P.W. 6 and he was still a tenant under the Central Government. Hits suit was dismissed by the trial Court with the finding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The first appeal against that judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated November 12, 1968 (Annexure P -14) and the second appeal by Tewatia, J., vide judgment dated May 21, 1970 (Annexure P 15).
(3.) THE petitioner for the third time moved an ejectment application against respondent No. 5 seeking his ejectment on various grounds which was allowed vide order dated March 16, 1971 (Annexure P -16). The appeal filed against the order of ejectment was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated November 13, 1972 (Annexure P -17) and the revision petition filed against that judgment - -Civil Revision No. 1296 of 1972 - -is alleged to be still pending in this Court.;