- (1.) THIS Full Bench has been constituted to consider the following question formulated by Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh by his order dated 9th of February, 1967:- "whether eviction of a tenant can be ordered on the ground that he had sublet or parted with the possession of the premises during the period the premises formed a part of the compensation pool or vested in the evacuee property and were exempt from the operation of the East punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 3 of 1949, on the application under section 13 of that Act of a person who purchases the property from the central Government after such subletting or parting with possession had occurred?"
(2.) THE facts as have been taken by the learned Single Judge for the purpose of the decision of the above-mentioned law point may briefly be stated as under:
(3.) THE shop in dispute, which belonged to some Muslims, was on rent with Messrs. Bishambar Putt Roshan Lal (hereinafter referred to as the tenants) immediately before the partition of the country in 1947. As Muslims had become evacuees, the shop vested in the Custodian, to whom the rent was paid by the tenants. Later, as a result of the notification issued under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the shop amongst other evacuee property was acquired by the Central Government for the rehabilitation of displaced persons and thus formed part of the compensation pool. Later still, it was put to auction when Gian Chand purchased it and a sale certificate was issued in his favour on 20th of March, 1958, and the title to the property vested in him with effect from 10th of February, 1958. On 28th of June, 1960, Gian Chand (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking ejectment of the tenants on the ground of subletting of the shop and non-payment of the rent. Arrears of rent having been paid, we are no longer concerned with that matter. The subletting was denied, but the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there was subletting of the premises. The Appellate Authority also found tha. t the tender of the arrears of rent was not in order, but that finding has been set aside by the learned Single Judge and the same need not be considered. The Appellate authority ordered the eviction of the tenant? and against that order the revision petition, out of which the present reference has arisen, was filed on behalf of the tenants.;