D.K.Mahajan, J. - (1.) This petition for revision is directed against the decision of the Appellate Authority affirming on appeal, the decision of the Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the petitioner.
(2.) It may be mentioned that the ground, on which the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner, is not the ground on which his eviction has been ordered by the Appellate Authority. The Rent Controller ordered the eviction on the ground that the landlords needed the premises for their own occupation and the occupation of their family members; whereas the Appellate Authority has upheld the eviction order on the ground that no valid tender of rent was made, as required by Sec. 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (Act No. 44 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(3.) The premises in dispute were sold by the Rehabilitation Authorities by auction. They were purchased by Tara Chand, with whom Asa Nand was the associated purchaser. The sale certificate was issued to Tara Chand on the 9th of March, 1965; and the fact, that Asa Nand is associated with him, is mentioned in the sale certificate. Both Asa Nand and Tara Chand are in possession of the part of the premises. The petitioner-tenant is in possession of the remaining part of the premises. An application was filed for eviction of the petitioner on the 12th of April, 1966. It is not necessary to advert to the other grounds of eviction in the petition because only two grounds figured before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. One ground related to the personal requirements of the owners and the other to valid tender of the arrears of rent. The Rent Controller held that the tender was valid; but as the owners required the premises for their personal use, an order of eviction was called for. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that no eviction could be ordered within two years of the date of the sale certificate in view of Sec. 29 of the Act. It was pointed out to the Appellate Authority that the period of two years had expired when the matter of eviction was to be considered by that Authority. However, that Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that no valid tender had been made as required by Sec. 29 of the Act. The tenant, who is dissatisfied with his decision, has now come up in revision to this Court.;