Anant Ram Bhatia v. State of U. P. — 1965 DIGILAW 400 (ALL)

JUDGMENT S.N. Dwivedi, J. - This case has been referred to us by a learned single Jude. Two points arise for determination: (1) Whether the accommodation in dispute was evacuee property on 15-11-1961; (2) Whether the accommodation in dispute was subject to the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act on 15-11-61. 2. The range of controversy before the authorities under the said Act was very wide, but now we are concerned with these two points only. Accordingly facts which are material for determination of these points will aloe stated, and facts concern with other controversies wile omitted from our narration. 3. The accommodation in dispute is the front portion of the house No. 49, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, but the whole house was admittedly evacuee property at one time. The Custodian allotted the front portion to one N. Hellen on a monthly rent of Rs. 31.25 on June 26, 1952. Sometime later the Central Government published a notification in the Gazette to the effect that it has decided to acquire the house under sub-Sec. (1) of Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (here in below called the Act). On April 23, 1956, the house was, it appears, auction-sold to the petitioner under Section 20 of the Act by the Managing Officer, Dehra Dun. The Managing Officer issued the sale certificate to him on May 12, 1959, Annexure 'A' to the counter-affidavit of Saroj Kumar Mukerji, the fourth respondent, is a copy of the sale certificate. J. N. Hellen defaulted in payment of rent to the petitioner and a decree for his ejectment was passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun. He was ejected in execution of the decree on August 26, 1961. On September 4, 1961, he informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun that he has vacated the front portion. On September 8, 1961, the petitioner applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the release of the portion vacated by J. N. Hellen in his favour. Later on, he withdrew this application. Meanwhile Saroj Kumar Mukerji also applied for allotment of the vacant portion to him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted it to him on November 15, 1961. Later on, he withdrew this application. Meanwhile Saroj Kumar Mukerji also applied for allotment of the vacant portion to him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted it to him on November 15, 1961. The petitioner did not deliver possession to him, and then proceedings for the ejectment of the former started under Section 7-A of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, After hearing the parties the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed issue of a notice for ejectment under Section 7-A (2) against the petitioner on March 19, 1962. Then he filed a revision before the Commissioner against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The revision was dismissed on September 19, 1962. Then he made a representation to the State Government under Section 7-F. It was rejected on December 20, 1962. The petitioner challenges the allotment order and the various orders for his ejectment. 4. Sub-Sec. (1) of Section 12 of the Act provides that if the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary to acquire any evacuee property for a public purpose, the Central Government may acquire such evacuee property by publishing in the Gazette a notification that it has decided to acquire such evacuee property. Sub-Sec. (2) thereof specifies the effect of the publication of a notification under sub-Sec. (1) of Section 12. It provides that on the publication of a notification under sub-Sec. (1) the right, title and interest of any evacuee in the evacuee property specified in the notification shall, on and from the beginning of the date on which the notification is published, be extinguished, and the evacuee property shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. In the face of sub-Sec. (2) it is hardly possible to contend that the house continued to be evacuee property notwithstanding the publication of a notification in respect of it under sub-Sec. (1). The effect of sub-Sec. (2) is quite plain. As soon as a notification is published under sub-Sec. (1), the property ceases to be evacuee property. The right, title and interest of the evacuee in the property are extinguished and the evacuee property vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The effect of sub-Sec. (2) is quite plain. As soon as a notification is published under sub-Sec. (1), the property ceases to be evacuee property. The right, title and interest of the evacuee in the property are extinguished and the evacuee property vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. In Basant Ram v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 994 at page 996 it was observed: "The consequence of that notification is that all rights, title and interest of the evacuee in the property ceased with the result that the property no longer remained evacuee property. Once, therefore, the property ceased to be evacuee property, it cannot be dealt with under the Central Act No. XXXI of 1950 or the Rules framed thereunder." 5. We therefore hold that the house was not an evacuee property on 15-11-61. In Manohar Lal v. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly, AIR 1959 Allahabad 388 : 1959 A.L.J. 257 The accommodation in dispute was notified under sub-Sec. (1) of Section 12. Thereafter it was auction sold to one Vidya Bhushan under Section 20 of the Act in October/November 1956. No sale certificate was issued to Vidya Bhushan until June 1957 when the Rent Control and Eviction Officer initiated proceedings under Section 7-A of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act against Manohar Lal. The plea of Manohar Lal was that he was occupying the accommodation as a licensee of Vidya Bhushan. He also pleaded that the accommodation, being evacuee property, was not governed by the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. It was held by Tandon, that the accommodation continued to be evacuee property until a sale certificate was issued. We think that this view does not represent the correct legal plain. As soon as a notification is L. J. 257 position. Having regard to the provisions of Section 12 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Basant Ram's case A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 994 at page 996 we are of opinion that the accommodation ceased to be evacuee property from the date of the notification under Section 12(l) of the Act. We would make it clear that we should not be supposed to have expressed any opinion regarding the correctness of the actual decision in Manohar Lal's case. 6. We shall now take up the second point for determination. We would make it clear that we should not be supposed to have expressed any opinion regarding the correctness of the actual decision in Manohar Lal's case. 6. We shall now take up the second point for determination. As already stated, a sale certificate was issued in respect of the house of the petitioner on May, 12, 1959. It was allotted to Saroj Kumar Mukerji on November 15, 1961 after J. N. Hellen had been ejected therefrom. It may be noted that the allotment was made after the expiry of two years from the date of the issue of the sale certificate to the petitioner. The effect of the issue of the sale certificate under rule 90(15) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and the Rehabilitation) Rules on May 12, 1959 was that the petitioner became the full owner of the house (vide Messrs. Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries v. L. J. Johonson and others, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 289. 7. Sub-Sec. (1) of Section 29 of the Act provides that there any person is in lawful possession of any immovable property notified under sub-Sec. (2) thereof and which is transferred to any person under the Act, then notwithstanding anything contained in any other law such person shall 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. Sub-Sec. (1) contains a proviso to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in any such terms and conditions no such person shall be liable to be ejected from the property during two years except on certain grounds. As the accommodation was allotted to Saroj Kumar Mukerji after the expiry of two years from the date of the sale certificate, it is not necessary for us to decide this case whether the accommodation was not subject to the provisions if the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act during the period of two years from the date of the issue of the sale certificate. There is nothing in the Act to show that the accommodation would not be subject to the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act when J. N. Hellen had been ejected after the expiry of two years from the date of the issue of the sale certificate. There is nothing in the Act to show that the accommodation would not be subject to the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act when J. N. Hellen had been ejected after the expiry of two years from the date of the issue of the sale certificate. The accommodation was an accommodation within the meaning of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act on 15(?)11-61. It was therefore subject to the provisions of that Act and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could allot it to Saroj Kumar Mukerji. 8. Mr. Mrs. P. Luthra v. Dr. Jagmohan Singh Second Appeal No. 789 of 1963, decided on March 13, 1963, Singh, J. has held in similar circumstances as in the present case that the accommodation was governed by the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. Singh, J. adhered to his view in Rashid Ali v. Azizans, AIR 1964 Allahabad 183 With respect,we agree that when the person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 29(l) of the Act, has been ejected from an accommodation after the expiry of two years from the date of the issue of the sale certificate, the accommodation becomes subject to the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Sardha Ram Bhola Nath v. Paras Ram Mohan, Lal, A.I.R. 1962 Pun. 147 in support of his arguments. The facts of that case are distinguishable from the facts of the case before us. There a decree for ejectment of a person, who was deemed to be a tenant under Section 29(1) of the Act, was passed by a civil court. In the execution proceedings he claimed protection from ejectment under Section 13(l) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The question for determination was whether Section 29 of the Act or Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act governed the case. I. D. Dua, J., held, that Section 29 governed his ejectment and not Section 30. Obviously in the present case we are not concerned with the ejectment of J. N. Hellen, who was deemed to be a tenant under Section 29(l). He had been ejected a couple of months before 15-11-61 on which date the accommodation was allotted to Saroj Kumar Mukerji. 10. Obviously in the present case we are not concerned with the ejectment of J. N. Hellen, who was deemed to be a tenant under Section 29(l). He had been ejected a couple of months before 15-11-61 on which date the accommodation was allotted to Saroj Kumar Mukerji. 10. In the end, counsel for the petitioner wanted to inform us that the accommodation has recently fallen down completely. In deciding whether the allotment and the order for ejectment of the petitioner under Section 7 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act are valid we are hardly concerned with this fact. We would therefore not express any opinion about it. 11. In the result we dismiss this petition with costs.