A.D. Koshal, J. - (1.) A shop designated as No. 1254 and located in Samana town which belonged to the compensation pool was auctioned by the District Rent and Managing Officer, Patiala, on the 9th of June, 1961. The highest bid, which was for Rs. 2200/ - was made by the Respondent to whom the District Rent and Managing Officer issued a letter dated July 13, 1961 (Exhibit A/2) informing him that his bid had been accepted and that after making allowance for the amount of Rs. 220/ - received as earnest money a sum of Rs. 1,980/ - remained due from him which he was required to pay in the form of deposit in a Government treasury or by adjustment of any admissible claims, within 15 days of the receipt of the letter, which further stated that if the Respondent failed to pay the balance of the purchase price within the time stipulated the earnest money already paid by him would stand forfeited under Rule 90(14) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), and that the Respondent would have no claim to the property. On the 28th of August, 1961, the Petitioner who had been for years in occupation of the property in dispute as an allottee under the Custodian of Evacuee Property sent a letter (Exhibit A.W. 4/A) to the Respondent stating: ... Shop No. 1254 is with me on rent from the Custodian at Rs. 5/ -per mensem, of which I have been regularly paying rent to the Custodian against receipts which I possess. Now it is learnt that the said shop has been purchased by you in public auction from the Custodian and that you have become owner of the shop in place of the Custodian. So I am hereby writing to you that from the date from which the shop has been transferred to you, you have rent from me at the rate of Rs. 5/ - per mensem after going into an account with me; and if you so wish you may have a rent deed also executed. I have no objection in paying the rent and writing out the rent note but this fact would be stated by you as to how much rent you are entitled to.
(2.) NO reply was sent to this letter by the Respondent who in the meantime appears to have associated with himself a person named Shrimati Devi Bai who had a claim payable by the Rehabilitation Department. On the 17th of October, (1961 ?) the District Rent and Managing Officer addressed letter Exhibit A. 3 to the Settlement Officer, Ambala, asking him to take steps to have an amount of Rs. 111 out of the claim of Shrimati Devi Bai adjusted against the purchase price payable by the Respondent. On the 6th of February, 1962, the District Rent and Managing Officer issued another letter (Exhibit A/1) to the Respondent informing him: As already intimated your bid amounting to Rs. 2,200 for the property mentioned above has been accepted. As you requested for the adjustment of net compensation admissible against the compensation applications noted above and there is likely to be some delay in finalising them it has been decided to transfer to you the possession of the said property on a provisional basis on the strength of the copies of the claims, assessment orders, affidavits and other documents furnished by you and your associates. As the property is already in the occupation of tenants they will be entitled to the protection of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, if they fulfil the conditions prescribed in the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation Notification No. F. 51(14)/S. 11/55, dated the 27th September, 1955, as amended from time to time. Meanwhile, you may exercise full power and control over the management of the said property, to wit: (i) take all steps authorised by law for realising the rent and any local taxes or dues payable by tenants. (ii) to make such repairs as are necessary for the security of the building. On 14th of April, 1966, the Respondent made an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act praying for the ejectment from the said shop of the Petitioner on the ground that the latter, who was a tenant under the Respondent, had fallen in arrears with regard to the rent and that the shop which was in a dilapidated condition was required by the Respondent for reconstruction. The Petitioner took the stand that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However he paid a sum of Rs. 255 before the Controller to the Respondent who accepted the same under protest. This amount included Rs. 211.20 on account of rent at the rate of Rs. 5 per mensem from February 6, 1962, to May 6, 1966, Rs. 23.80 towards interest and Rs. 20 for expenses of the litigation. He also took up a plea that he was not liable to eviction from the shop in dispute by reason of any requirement thereof by the Respondent for reconstruction. On the pleadings of the parties the Controller framed the following issues: (1) Whether the tender of rent by the Respondent is legal ? O.P.R. (2) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and; if so, to what effect ? O.P.A. (3) Whether the Respondent is liable to eviction on grounds mentioned in paras 5 to 7 of the petition ? O.P.A. (4) Relief.
(3.) THE learned Controller held that in view of letters Exhibits A/1 and A/2 the Respondent became entitled to realize rent from the Petitioner with effect from 9th of June, 1961, and that the tender of Rs. 255 made to the latter was not such as to allow the Petitioner to escape the liability for eviction resulting from the non -payment of the rent. This is how he decided issue No. 1. However, he found issue No. 2 against the Respondent in view of the fact that no sale certificate had been issued in favour of the Respondent. In this connection he relied upon Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries v. L.J. Johnson and Ors. : AIR 1958 S.C. 289 and J.B. Mangharam and Company, Hyderabad v. Shri Parshotam Sarup, Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, and Ors., 1962 P.L.R. 922. The decision on issue No. 3 also went against the Respondent. In the result, therefore, the application of the Respondent was dismissed on the 17th of August, 1967.;