J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, dated October 19,1987, whereby the sale certificate issued by the Rehabilitation Department under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not allowed to be produced on record as the same was not a registered one.
(2.) DURING the pendency of this revision, the landlord -petitioner Hari Chand died. Civil Miscellaneous No.315 -C -II, of 1989 was moved in this Court for bringing his legal representatives on record. The said civil miscellaneous application is allowed and the persons mentioned therein are allowed to be brought on the record as legal representatives of the deceased. During the ejectment proceedings, the landlord Hari Chand wanted to exhibit the original sale certificate issued by the Rehabilitation Department in his evidence. This was objected to on behalf of the tenant -respondents on the ground that this sale certificate requires compulsory registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, as the suit property was purchased by the landlord in public auction for Rs.3 8,500/ - from the department. Thus, according to the tenants, the said certificate could not be exhibited. This contention of the tenants prevailed with the Rent Controller. In this behalf, he placed reliance on a judgment of Allahabad High Court reported in MazharulIslam and others v. Khacher Bux and another, : AIR 1969 All 554 and came to the conclusion that since Section 17 of the Registration Act requires compulsory registration of a property worth more than Rs.100/ -, the same could not be produced in evidence unless registered. According to the learned Rent Controller, there was no authority of law cited by the landlord which exempted the registration of sale certificate sought to be produced by the landlord.
(3.) AT the time of motion hearing, 1962 PLR 834 was cited to contend that the sale certificate issued by the Rehabilitation Department does not require registration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by the learned Rent Controller was wholly wrong and illegal. Even the judgment relied upon by him has made the distinction between the certificate issued by the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the sale certificate issued by the Managing Officer under the Displaced Persons (C & S) Act, 1954. He also cited, ILR 1974 (1) Del 681 to contend that the sale certificate did not require registration. ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the view taken in 1962 Punjab 834 (supra) was not the authority for the said proposition as it did not give any reason. According to the learned counsel, sub -section (2) of Section 20 of the Act lays down that every Managing Officer selling any immovable property by public auction under sub -section (1) shall be deemed to be a Revenue Officer within the meaning of subsection (4) of Section 89 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. According to the learned Counsel, he could not be said to be a Revenue Officer as contemplated under clause 12 of sub -section 2 of section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and, therefore, the sale certificate issued by the Managing Officer requires compulsory registration. In support of his contention he referred to 1908 Punjab Records 142 and : AIR 1935 Mad 55.;