BISMAMBAR DASS Vs. CHHAJU RAM AND ANR.
LAWS(P&H)-1969-9-36
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 29,1969

Bismambar Dass Appellant
VERSUS
Chhaju Ram And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Shamsher Bahadur, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal of Bishamber Dass whose suit for possession for the disputed premises consisting of a house in Mohalla Saidhan, Ludhiana was decreed by the trial Judge but in appeal of the Defendants, has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court.
(2.) IT is common ground that the house in question was evacuee property and a sale certificate was granted in favour of the Appellant on the 29th January, 1964. The sale was to take effect with effect from the 28th February, 1963. Beli Ram, lather of the Defendants, Chhaju Ram and Chaman Lal, was in occupation of the house as an allottee Beli Ram, therefore, enjoyed the protection afforded by Section 39 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, for a period of two years. Beli Ram died some time in February, 1965. After the death of Beli Ram, his sons continued to remain -in possession and inspite of the notice served on them,, they refused to vacate the premises. The Plaintiff was, therefore, obliged to bring the present suit for possession. The only plea raised by the Defendants was that they were not trespassers and had become tenants under Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The only issue framed in the case was this: Whether the Defendants are the tenants of the Plaintiff under Section 29 of the Central Act No. 44 of 1954. The lower appellate Court found that no such tenancy has been established to exist under Section 29 of the Central Act, The suit was accordingly decreed.
(3.) DESPITE the specific plea taken by the Defendants, the lower appellate Court found that the sons of Beli Ram, continued to enjoy protection of the Rent Acts and if they continued to pay the rent they could hold on to the property. Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, says that: Where any person to whom the provisions of this section apply, is in lawful possession of any immovable property...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: Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any such terms and conditions, no such person shall be liable to be ejected from the property during such period not exceeding two years as may be prescribed in respect of that class of property, except.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.